Heart Hospital, University College London Hospital, 16-18 Westmoreland Street, London, W1G 8PH, UK.
BMC Med. 2013 May 8;11:123. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-123.
The role of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) is unclear. Increasing evidence has shown a benefit for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Its effect on de novo coronary lesions is more controversial. Several smaller randomized trials found conflicting results.
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effect of local Paclitaxel delivery/drug eluting balloons (DEB) (+/- bare metal stent) compared to current standard therapy (stenting) to treat de novo coronary lesions. Data sources for RCT were identified through a literature search from 2005 through 28 December 2012. The main endpoints of interest were target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), binary in-segment restenosis, stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), late lumen loss (LLL) and mortality. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.
Eight studies (11 subgroups) and a total of 1,706 patients were included in this analysis. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 to 12 months. Overall, DEB showed similar results to the comparator treatment. The relative risk (RR) for MACE was 0.95 (0.64 to 1.39); P = 0.776, for mortality it was 0.79 (0.30 to 2.11), P = 0.644, for stent thrombosis it was 1.45 (0.42 to 5.01), P = 0.560, for MI it was 1.26 (0.49 to 3.21), P = 0.629, for TLR it was 1.09 (0.71 to 1.68); P = 0.700 and for binary in-stent restenosis it was 0.96 (0.48 to 1.93), P = 0.918. Compared to bare metal stents (BMS), DEB showed a lower LLL (- 0.26 mm (-0.51 to 0.01)) and a trend towards a lower MACE risk (RR 0.66 (0.43 to 1.02)).
Overall, drug-eluting balloons (+/- bare metal stent) are not superior to current standard therapies (BMS or drug eluting stent (DES)) in treating de novo coronary lesions. However, the performance of DEB seems to lie in between DES and BMS with a trend towards superiority over BMS alone. Therefore, DEB may be considered in patients with contraindications for DES. The heterogeneity between the included studies is a limitation of this meta-analysis; different drug-eluting balloons have been used.
药物洗脱球囊(DEB)的作用尚不清楚。越来越多的证据表明其在治疗支架内再狭窄方面有益。但其在治疗新发冠状动脉病变方面的效果则更具争议性。一些较小的随机试验得出了相互矛盾的结果。
这是一项系统评价和荟萃分析,纳入了评估局部紫杉醇给药/药物洗脱球囊(DEB)(+/- 裸金属支架)与当前标准治疗(支架置入)治疗新发冠状动脉病变的随机对照试验(RCT)。通过文献检索确定 RCT 的数据来源,检索时间为 2005 年至 2012 年 12 月 28 日。主要观察终点为靶病变血运重建(TLR)、主要不良心脏事件(MACE)、节段内再狭窄、支架血栓形成(ST)、心肌梗死(MI)、晚期管腔丢失(LLL)和死亡率。采用随机效应模型计算汇总相对风险(RR)和 95%置信区间。
纳入了 8 项研究(11 个亚组),共计 1706 例患者。随访时间为 6 至 12 个月。总体而言,DEB 与对照组的治疗结果相似。MACE 的相对风险(RR)为 0.95(0.64 至 1.39);P=0.776,死亡率的 RR 为 0.79(0.30 至 2.11);P=0.644,支架血栓形成的 RR 为 1.45(0.42 至 5.01);P=0.560,心肌梗死的 RR 为 1.26(0.49 至 3.21);P=0.629,TLR 的 RR 为 1.09(0.71 至 1.68);P=0.700,节段内再狭窄的 RR 为 0.96(0.48 至 1.93);P=0.918。与裸金属支架(BMS)相比,DEB 可降低晚期管腔丢失(-0.26mm,-0.51 至 0.01),且具有降低 MACE 风险的趋势(RR 0.66,0.43 至 1.02)。
总体而言,药物洗脱球囊(+/- 裸金属支架)在治疗新发冠状动脉病变方面并不优于当前的标准治疗(BMS 或药物洗脱支架(DES))。然而,DEB 的表现似乎介于 DES 和 BMS 之间,且单独使用 BMS 时具有优势的趋势。因此,对于 DES 治疗有禁忌的患者,可以考虑使用 DEB。纳入研究的异质性是该荟萃分析的局限性;不同的药物洗脱球囊已被用于该研究。