Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Drug-Eluting Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to systematically review the evidence of drug-coated balloon used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction and compared with using drug-eluting stent in terms of clinical and angiographic outcomes for a relatively long follow-up period.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were used to search for the information of each study. A total of 8 studies involving 1310 patients were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up duration of 12 months (range 3-24 months), there were no statistical differences between the drug-coated balloon and drug-eluting stent group in terms of a major adverse cardiovascular event (odds ratio = 1.07; P =.75; 95% CI: 0.72-1.57), all-cause death (odds ratio = 1.01; P =.98; 95% CI = 0.56-1.82), cardiac death (odds ratio = 0.85, P =.65; 95% CI = 0.42-1.72), target lesion revascularization (odds ratio = 1.72; P =.09; 95% CI: 0.93-3.19), recurrent myocardial infarction (odds ratio = 0.89, P =.76; 95% CI: 0.44-1.83), and thrombotic event (odds ratio = 1.10; P =.90; 95% CI: 0.24-5.02). Drug-coated balloon was not linked with risk of late lumen loss compared with drug-eluting stent (mean difference = -0.06 mm; P =.42; 95% CI: -0.22-0.09 mm). However, there was a higher incidence of target vessel revascularization noted in the drug-coated balloon group compared with the drug-eluting stent group (odds ratio = 1.88; P =.02; 95% CI: 1.10-3.22). The subgroup analysis stratified by different study types and ethnicities showed there were no significant differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Using drug-coated balloon might serve as a potential alternative strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction because of the similar clinical and angiographic outcomes compared with using drug-eluting stent; nevertheless, the issue of target vessel revascularization should be more focused on. Larger and more representative studies are needed in the future.