新发小血管冠状动脉病变患者的治疗:对比紫杉醇涂层球囊与药物洗脱支架的六项随机对照试验分析。

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Cureus Pub Date : 2024-09-23 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.7759/cureus.69983
Andrea Messori, Sabrina Trippoli
{"title":"新发小血管冠状动脉病变患者的治疗:对比紫杉醇涂层球囊与药物洗脱支架的六项随机对照试验分析。","authors":"Andrea Messori, Sabrina Trippoli","doi":"10.7759/cureus.69983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are indicated for the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions. Since the evidence comparing these two types of devices is limited, we undertook a meta-analysis on this issue. Our meta-analysis compared the efficacy of PCB vs. DES in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary lesions of size ≤ 2.75 mm. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The two treatments under comparison were PCB vs DES; the endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Our statistical methods were based on the reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves using the IPDfromKM algorithm. After this reconstruction, our statistical calculations included hazard ratio (HR) estimation with a 95% confidence interval (CI), assessment of between-trial heterogeneity, and risk of bias for each RCT. Our literature search identified six RCTs that met our inclusion criteria (PICCOLETO, BELLO, RESTORE SVD, BASKET-SMALL2, PICCOLETO-II, and DISSOLVE). In our main analysis, the six treatment groups using PCB were compared with the six control groups using DES. The results showed an HR of 1.029 (95%CI, 0.7446 to 1.422; P=0.86) over a follow-up of 36 months. Heterogeneity analysis across the six control groups showed worse outcomes in the BELLO trial and better outcomes in the three trials employing a limus-eluting stent. To evaluate trial heterogeneity through the comparison of the six PCB arms, five trials showed similar outcomes while the BELLO trial fared significantly worse. Risk of bias for each RCT was appropriate.  Our results indicate that in de novo small-vessel coronary lesions, PCB and DES showed similar outcomes, despite some cross-study variability. Our results provided meta-analytic confirmation that no recommendations can be made in favor of PCB or DES in the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions based on current data.</p>","PeriodicalId":93960,"journal":{"name":"Cureus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418083/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment of Patients With De Novo Small-Vessel Coronary Lesions: Analysis of Six Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Messori, Sabrina Trippoli\",\"doi\":\"10.7759/cureus.69983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are indicated for the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions. Since the evidence comparing these two types of devices is limited, we undertook a meta-analysis on this issue. Our meta-analysis compared the efficacy of PCB vs. DES in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary lesions of size ≤ 2.75 mm. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The two treatments under comparison were PCB vs DES; the endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Our statistical methods were based on the reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves using the IPDfromKM algorithm. After this reconstruction, our statistical calculations included hazard ratio (HR) estimation with a 95% confidence interval (CI), assessment of between-trial heterogeneity, and risk of bias for each RCT. Our literature search identified six RCTs that met our inclusion criteria (PICCOLETO, BELLO, RESTORE SVD, BASKET-SMALL2, PICCOLETO-II, and DISSOLVE). In our main analysis, the six treatment groups using PCB were compared with the six control groups using DES. The results showed an HR of 1.029 (95%CI, 0.7446 to 1.422; P=0.86) over a follow-up of 36 months. Heterogeneity analysis across the six control groups showed worse outcomes in the BELLO trial and better outcomes in the three trials employing a limus-eluting stent. To evaluate trial heterogeneity through the comparison of the six PCB arms, five trials showed similar outcomes while the BELLO trial fared significantly worse. Risk of bias for each RCT was appropriate.  Our results indicate that in de novo small-vessel coronary lesions, PCB and DES showed similar outcomes, despite some cross-study variability. Our results provided meta-analytic confirmation that no recommendations can be made in favor of PCB or DES in the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions based on current data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93960,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cureus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418083/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cureus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.69983\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cureus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.69983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

紫杉醇涂层球囊(PCB)和药物洗脱支架(DES)都适用于治疗新生小血管冠状动脉病变。由于比较这两种装置的证据有限,我们就此进行了一项荟萃分析。我们的荟萃分析比较了 PCB 与 DES 在治疗大小≤2.75 毫米的新生冠状动脉病变患者中的疗效。只纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)。比较的两种治疗方法是PCB和DES;终点是主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的发生率。我们的统计方法基于使用 IPDfromKM 算法从 Kaplan-Meier 曲线重建的单个患者数据。重建后,我们的统计计算包括危险比(HR)估算和 95% 置信区间(CI)、试验间异质性评估以及每项 RCT 的偏倚风险。我们在文献检索中发现了六项符合纳入标准的 RCT(PICCOLETO、BELLO、RESTORE SVD、BASKET-SMALL2、PICCOLETO-II 和 DISSOLVE)。在我们的主要分析中,使用 PCB 的六个治疗组与使用 DES 的六个对照组进行了比较。结果显示,随访 36 个月的 HR 为 1.029(95%CI,0.7446 至 1.422;P=0.86)。对六个对照组进行的异质性分析表明,BELLO试验的疗效较差,而采用limus洗脱支架的三项试验的疗效较好。通过比较六个PCB臂来评估试验的异质性,五项试验显示出相似的结果,而BELLO试验的结果明显较差。每项临床试验的偏倚风险都是适当的。 我们的结果表明,在新生小血管冠状动脉病变中,PCB 和 DES 显示出相似的结果,尽管存在一些跨研究的差异。我们的结果通过荟萃分析证实,根据目前的数据,在治疗新发小血管冠状动脉病变时,无法推荐PCB或DES。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Treatment of Patients With De Novo Small-Vessel Coronary Lesions: Analysis of Six Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents.

Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are indicated for the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions. Since the evidence comparing these two types of devices is limited, we undertook a meta-analysis on this issue. Our meta-analysis compared the efficacy of PCB vs. DES in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary lesions of size ≤ 2.75 mm. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The two treatments under comparison were PCB vs DES; the endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Our statistical methods were based on the reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves using the IPDfromKM algorithm. After this reconstruction, our statistical calculations included hazard ratio (HR) estimation with a 95% confidence interval (CI), assessment of between-trial heterogeneity, and risk of bias for each RCT. Our literature search identified six RCTs that met our inclusion criteria (PICCOLETO, BELLO, RESTORE SVD, BASKET-SMALL2, PICCOLETO-II, and DISSOLVE). In our main analysis, the six treatment groups using PCB were compared with the six control groups using DES. The results showed an HR of 1.029 (95%CI, 0.7446 to 1.422; P=0.86) over a follow-up of 36 months. Heterogeneity analysis across the six control groups showed worse outcomes in the BELLO trial and better outcomes in the three trials employing a limus-eluting stent. To evaluate trial heterogeneity through the comparison of the six PCB arms, five trials showed similar outcomes while the BELLO trial fared significantly worse. Risk of bias for each RCT was appropriate.  Our results indicate that in de novo small-vessel coronary lesions, PCB and DES showed similar outcomes, despite some cross-study variability. Our results provided meta-analytic confirmation that no recommendations can be made in favor of PCB or DES in the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions based on current data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Routine Preoperative Ultrasound-Guided Airway Examination Versus Clinical Airway Examination in Predicting Difficult Laryngoscopy in Patients Coming for Elective Surgery: An Observational Study. Unearthing Influenza's Unusual Neurological Impact. The Current Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Detection of Its Complications: A Systematic Review. Assessment of Optimal Treatment Strategies and Their Outcomes in T3N1 Rectal Cancers. Effective Pain Management of Postherpetic Neuralgia Using a Combination of Analgesics and Conservative Measures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1