Liou Kevin, Jepson Nigel, Cao Chris, Luo Roger, Pala Sarvpreet, Ooi Sze-Yuan
Eastern Heart Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Eastern Heart Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Heart Lung Circ. 2016 Dec;25(12):1184-1194. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2016.04.001. Epub 2016 Apr 23.
In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a significant mode of stent failure following PCI. The optimal treatment strategy, however, remains undefined and the role of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in the management of ISR is also unclear.
A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of DEB in the treatment of ISR against second generation drug eluting stents (DES).
Seven studies comprised of 1,065 patients were included for analysis. The follow-up period ranged from 12-25 months. The use of DEB was associated with an inferior acute gain in minimal luminal diameter (MLD) (0.36, 95% CI: 0.16-0.57mm), higher late loss in MLD (0.11, 0.02-0.19mm) and a higher binary restenosis rate at follow-up (risk ratio: 2.24, 1.49-3.37). No significant differences were noted in the overall incidence of the analysed clinical parameters between the two groups. When only the randomised controlled trials (RCT) were considered however, there was a strong trend towards higher target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 9.9% vs. 3.6%; RR: 2.5, p=0.07) and a significantly higher major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate (15.7% vs. 8.8%; RR 1.78; p=0.02) with DEB.
While equipoise has been demonstrated in selected clinical outcomes between DEB and second generation DES in the treatment of ISR, the suboptimal angiographic outcome at follow-up and the higher TLR and MACE rates associated with DEB observed in the RCT are concerning. The results of the present analysis should be regarded as preliminary, although the generalised adoption of DEB in the treatment of ISR currently cannot be recommended.
支架内再狭窄(ISR)仍是经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后支架失败的重要模式。然而,最佳治疗策略仍未明确,药物洗脱球囊(DEB)在ISR管理中的作用也不清楚。
进行一项荟萃分析,比较DEB治疗ISR与第二代药物洗脱支架(DES)的疗效。
纳入7项研究,共1065例患者进行分析。随访期为12 - 25个月。使用DEB与最小管腔直径(MLD)的急性增益较差(0.36,95%可信区间:0.16 - 0.57mm)、MLD的晚期丢失较高(0.11,0.02 - 0.19mm)以及随访时较高的二元再狭窄率相关(风险比:2.24,1.49 - 3.37)。两组之间分析的临床参数总体发生率无显著差异。然而,仅考虑随机对照试验(RCT)时,DEB组有更高的靶病变血运重建(TLR;9.9%对3.6%;RR:2.5,p = 0.07)和显著更高的主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率(15.7%对8.8%;RR 1.78;p = 0.02)的强烈趋势。
虽然在ISR治疗中DEB与第二代DES在某些临床结局方面已显示出平衡,但随访时血管造影结果欠佳以及RCT中观察到的与DEB相关的较高TLR和MACE发生率令人担忧。本分析结果应视为初步结果,尽管目前不建议在ISR治疗中普遍采用DEB。