Drug-Coated Balloon versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients with Small-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The clinical utility of circulating cell division control 42 in small-vessel coronary artery disease patients undergoing drug-coated balloon treatment

BACKGROUND

Cell division control 42 (CDC42) regulates atherosclerosis, blood lipids, and inflammation and thus affects coronary artery disease (CAD), but its utility in drug-coated balloon (DCB)-treated small-vessel CAD (SV-CAD) patients is unclear. This study intended to evaluate the change and prognostic role of CDC42 in SV-CAD patients underwent DCB.

METHODS

Serum CDC42 was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 211 SV-CAD patients underwent DCB at baseline, day (D) 1, D3, and D7, as well as in 50 healthy controls (HCs).

RESULTS

CDC42 was decreased in SV-CAD patients compared to HCs (P < 0.001), and it was negatively associated with total cholesterol (P = 0.015), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P = 0.003), C-reactive protein (P = 0.001), multivessel disease (P = 0.020), and American college of cardiology/American heart association type B2/C lesions (P = 0.039) in SV-CAD patients. Longitudinally, CDC42 decreased from baseline to D1 and then gradually increased to D7 (P < 0.001) in SV-CAD patients after DCB. Interestingly, high CDC42 (cut-off value = 500 pg/mL) at baseline (P = 0.047), D3 (P = 0.046), and D7 (P = 0.008) was associated with a lower accumulating target lesion failure (TLF) rate; high CDC42 at D3 (P = 0.037) and D7 (P = 0.041) was related to a lower accumulating major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate in SV-CAD patients underwent DCB. Importantly, CDC42 at D7 (high vs. low) independently predicted lower accumulating TLF (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.145, P = 0.021) and MACE (HR = 0.295, P = 0.023) risks in SV-CAD patients underwent DCB.

CONCLUSIONS

Circulating CDC42 level relates to milder disease conditions and independently estimates lower risks of TLF and MACE in SV-CAD patients underwent DCB, but further validation is still needed.

Long-term Outcomes for Drug-eluting Balloons versus Drug-eluting Stents in the Treatment of Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares long-term outcomes follow-up data comparing drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) in interventional treatment of small coronary artery disease (<3 mm). Methods: A systematic review was undertaken along with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The primary outcome was 1-3-year performance of DEB versus DES in major adverse cardiac events. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, MI, cardiac death, vessel thrombosis, major bleeding, target vessel revascularisation and target lesion revascularisation. Two independent reviewers extracted data. All outcomes used the Mantel-Haenszel and random effects models. ORs are presented with a 95% CI. Results: Of 4,661 articles, four randomised control trials were included (1,414 patients). DEBs demonstrated reduced rates of non-fatal MI at 1 year (OR 0.44; 95% CI [0.2-0.94]), and BASKET-SMALL 2 reported a significant reduction in 2-year bleeding rates (OR 0.3; 95% CI [0.1-0.91]). There was no significant difference in all other outcomes. Conclusion: Long-term follow-up of DEB and DES use in small coronary arteries demonstrates DEBs be comparable with DESs in all outcomes at 1, 2 and 3 years of follow-up. A significant reduction was found in rates of non-fatal MI at 1 year in the DEB arm, and a reduction in major bleeding episodes at 2 years in the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial. These data highlight the potential long-term utility of novel DEBs in small coronary artery disease revascularisation.

The comparative short-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon vs. drug-eluting stent for treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients

Purpose

This meta-analysis aimed to explore the comparative short-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) vs. drug-eluting stent (DES) for treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) for retrieving relevant studies regarding the comparison of DCB with DES in treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients until May 31, 2022. Two independent authors screened study, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Then, the meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software, version 5.4.

Results

We included 6 studies with 847 patients in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that DCB was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) [RR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-0.93; p = 0.02], myocardial infarction (MI) (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.94; p = 0.03), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.69; p < 0.001), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.63; p < 0.001), binary restenosis (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68; p = 0.005), and late lumen loss (LLL) [mean difference (MD), -0.31; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.27; p < 0.001], but was comparable technique success rate, death, minimal lumen diameter (MLD), and net lumen gain (NLG) to DES. There was no difference in long-term outcomes between these two techniques.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis shows that DCB is better than DES in the short-term therapeutic efficacy and safety of small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients. However, more studies are required to validate our findings and investigate the long-term effects and safety of DCB.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one of the main causes of death in the world, and the incidence of AMI is increasing in the young population. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has become an effective concept for the treatment of in-stent restenosis, small vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, high blood risk conditions, and even de novo large vessel disease. To ensure whether DCB can play an alternative role in AMI, we conducted a comprehensive meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB in the treatment of AMI. Electronic databases were searched for RCTs that compared DCB with stent for AMI. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), the secondary outcome was late lumen loss (LLL). RevMan 5.3 software and RStudio software were used for data analysis. Five RCTs involving 528 patients with 6–12 months of follow-up were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACEs between DCB group and stent group (RR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.74; P = 0.66). Lower LLL was shown in DCB group (WMD, − 0.29; 95% CI − 0.46 to − 0.12; P < 0.001). This meta-analysis of RCT showed that DCB might provide a promising way on AMI compared with stents. Rigorous patients’ selection and adequate predilation of culprit lesions are necessary to optimize results and prevent bailout stent implantation.

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020214333.