Fusaro Massimiliano, Cassese Salvatore, Ndrepepa Gjin, King Lamin A, Tada Tomohisa, Ott Ilka, Kastrati Adnan
Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universität, Munich, Germany.
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 9;168(4):4002-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.06.081. Epub 2013 Jul 23.
The performance of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) or primary bare nitinol stent (BNS) versus uncoated balloon angioplasty (UCB) for femoropopliteal artery disease and the relative efficacy and safety of PCB versus BNS are still debated.
A meta-analysis of trials in which patients were randomly assigned to PCB versus UCB or BNS versus UCB was performed, as well as an indirect comparison of PCB versus BNS, with UCB common comparator. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR); secondary endpoints were restenosis, death and amputation.
In total, 1464 patients were assigned to revascularization with PCB versus UCB (n = 441) or BNS versus UCB (n = 1023). Treatment with PCB versus UCB reduced the risk of TLR (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.29 [0.15-0.56], p < 0.001) and restenosis (0.31 [0.19-0.51], p < 0.001) without affecting mortality (1.05 [0.41-2.71], p = 0.92) or amputation (0.68 [0.04-10.31], p = 0.78). BNS versus UCB therapy reduced the risk of TLR (0.46 [0.27-0.80], p = 0.006) and restenosis (0.51 [0.34-0.77], p = 0.02) without affecting mortality (2.08 [0.93-4.66], p = 0.07) or amputation (0.84 [0.30-2.35], p = 0.74). The indirect comparison found no difference with PCB versus BNS in the risk of TLR (0.63 [0.26-1.48] p = 0.29), restenosis (0.60 [0.32-1.15], p = 0.13) death (0.50 [0.05-4.82], p = 0.55) or amputation (0.80 [0.04-15.63], p = 0.66).
In atherosclerotic disease of femoropopliteal artery, both PCB and BNS therapy have superior antirestenotic efficacy to UCB, without safety issues. At indirect comparison, PCB and BNS may have comparable antirestenotic efficacy and safety.
紫杉醇涂层球囊(PCB)或原发性裸镍钛合金支架(BNS)与未涂层球囊血管成形术(UCB)治疗股腘动脉疾病的效果,以及PCB与BNS的相对疗效和安全性仍存在争议。
对患者被随机分配至PCB与UCB或BNS与UCB的试验进行荟萃分析,并以UCB作为共同对照对PCB与BNS进行间接比较。主要终点为靶病变血运重建(TLR);次要终点为再狭窄、死亡和截肢。
总共1464例患者被分配接受PCB与UCB(n = 441)或BNS与UCB(n = 1023)的血运重建治疗。与UCB相比,PCB治疗降低了TLR风险(比值比[95%置信区间]= 0.29 [0.15 - 0.56],p < 0.001)和再狭窄风险(0.31 [0.19 - 0.51],p < 0.001),且不影响死亡率(1.05 [0.41 - 2.71],p = 0.92)或截肢率(0.68 [0.04 - 10.31],p = 0.78)。与UCB治疗相比,BNS治疗降低了TLR风险(0.46 [0.27 - 0.80],p = 0.006)和再狭窄风险(0.51 [0.34 - 0.77],p = 0.02),且不影响死亡率(2.08 [0.93 - 4.66],p = 0.07)或截肢率(0.84 [0.30 - 2.35],p = 0.74)。间接比较发现,PCB与BNS在TLR风险(0.63 [0.26 - 1.48],p = 0.29)、再狭窄风险(0.60 [0.32 - 1.15],p = 0.13)、死亡风险(0.50 [0.05 - 4.82],p = 0.55)或截肢风险(0.80 [0.04 - 15.63],p = 0.66)方面无差异。
在股腘动脉粥样硬化疾病中,PCB和BNS治疗均具有优于UCB的抗再狭窄疗效,且无安全性问题。在间接比较中,PCB和BNS可能具有相当的抗再狭窄疗效和安全性。