Wei Zhili, Luo Ziran, Chang Yixvan, An Zhijing, Jin Sai, Rong Jianke, Song Bing
The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, 730000 Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Hospital of Lanzhou University, 730000 Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2025 Jun 16;26(6):26387. doi: 10.31083/RCM26387. eCollection 2025 Jun.
The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate and compare the efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) and paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) in treating patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR).
We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to August 2024. Two researchers independently conducted literature retrieval, screening, data inclusion, and quality assessment. A collaborative meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0.
A total of ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, all assessed using the Cochrane quality assessment tool and were categorized as having a low risk of bias. The analysis revealed a significantly higher need for target lesion revascularization in the PCB group compared to the EES group (odds ratio (OR) 2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.80-4.16), 0.001, = 38.6%). There were no significant differences between the EES or PCB treated ISR patients in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis within one year. Subgroup analyses based on ISR causative factors showed consistent results with overall findings and significantly reduced heterogeneity.
PCBs are associated with a higher frequency of target lesion revascularization compared to EES in the treatment of ISR. However, there are no significant differences in other outcome indicators. Therefore, EES is recommended as the preferred treatment for ISR in clinical decision-making.
INPLASY202480079, https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-8-0079/.
本研究旨在系统评价和比较依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)和紫杉醇涂层球囊(PCB)治疗支架内再狭窄(ISR)患者的疗效。
我们对截至2024年8月的PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、科学网和Embase数据库进行了全面检索。两名研究人员独立进行文献检索、筛选、数据纳入和质量评估。使用Stata 17.0进行了协作荟萃分析。
共纳入10项随机对照试验(RCT),均使用Cochrane质量评估工具进行评估,并被归类为低偏倚风险。分析显示,与EES组相比,PCB组靶病变血运重建的需求显著更高(优势比(OR)2.74,95%置信区间(CI)(1.80 - 4.16),P = 0.001,I² = 38.6%)。在全因死亡率、心源性死亡、心肌梗死、靶病变血运重建和1年内支架血栓形成方面,EES或PCB治疗的ISR患者之间没有显著差异。基于ISR病因因素的亚组分析结果与总体结果一致,且异质性显著降低。
在治疗ISR方面,与EES相比,PCB与更高频率的靶病变血运重建相关。然而,在其他结局指标上没有显著差异。因此,在临床决策中,建议将EES作为ISR的首选治疗方法。
INPLASY注册信息:INPLASY202480079,https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-8-0079/