Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Management of In-Stent Coronary Restenosis: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

IF 2.1 3区医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Pub Date : 2025-01-05 DOI:10.1002/ccd.31388

Vinícius M R Oliveira, Arthur Marot Paiva, Pedro Lucas Alves Alencar, Izadora Caiado Oliveira, João Victor Alves Alencar, Felipe Schmaltz Zalaf, Ricardo Figueiredo Paro Piai, André Maroccolo de Sousa, Humberto Graner Moreira

{"title":"Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Management of In-Stent Coronary Restenosis: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.","authors":"Vinícius M R Oliveira, Arthur Marot Paiva, Pedro Lucas Alves Alencar, Izadora Caiado Oliveira, João Victor Alves Alencar, Felipe Schmaltz Zalaf, Ricardo Figueiredo Paro Piai, André Maroccolo de Sousa, Humberto Graner Moreira","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Drug-coated balloons present a potentially advantageous therapeutic approach for managing coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, the comparative benefits of paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) over uncoated balloons (UCBs) remain unclear.Aims: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with PCBs and UCBs.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies comparing PCBs and UCBs in managing coronary ISR. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.Results: We included seven randomized controlled trials with 1349 patients, of whom 840 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with PCB. In our pooled analysis, patients treated with PCB had lower risks of target lesion revascularization (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.52; p < 0.01), target vessel revascularization (0.53, 0.42-0.67; p < 0.01), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (0.25, 0.16-0.38; p < 0.01), and myocardial infarction (MI) (0.59, 0.37-0.95; p = 0.03). However, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (0.79, 0.37-1.70; p = 0.54), cardiac death (0.46, 0.03-8.12; p = 0.60), while tendencies for a significant difference were found for target lesion failure (0.39, 0.13-1.11; p = 0.08), or stent thrombosis (0.21, 0.03-1.35 p = 0.10).Conclusion: These findings suggest that PCBs are superior to UCBs regarding the occurrence of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, MACEs, and MI, but they do not differ in all-cause mortality, and cardiac death, while trends to significant differences favoring PCB were found to stent thrombosis and target lesion failure.","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31388","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Drug-coated balloons present a potentially advantageous therapeutic approach for managing coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, the comparative benefits of paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) over uncoated balloons (UCBs) remain unclear.

Aims: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with PCBs and UCBs.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies comparing PCBs and UCBs in managing coronary ISR. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.

Results: We included seven randomized controlled trials with 1349 patients, of whom 840 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with PCB. In our pooled analysis, patients treated with PCB had lower risks of target lesion revascularization (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.52; p < 0.01), target vessel revascularization (0.53, 0.42-0.67; p < 0.01), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (0.25, 0.16-0.38; p < 0.01), and myocardial infarction (MI) (0.59, 0.37-0.95; p = 0.03). However, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (0.79, 0.37-1.70; p = 0.54), cardiac death (0.46, 0.03-8.12; p = 0.60), while tendencies for a significant difference were found for target lesion failure (0.39, 0.13-1.11; p = 0.08), or stent thrombosis (0.21, 0.03-1.35 p = 0.10).

Conclusion: These findings suggest that PCBs are superior to UCBs regarding the occurrence of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, MACEs, and MI, but they do not differ in all-cause mortality, and cardiac death, while trends to significant differences favoring PCB were found to stent thrombosis and target lesion failure.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 医学-心血管系统

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

8.70%

发文量

419

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.