Comparisons of Drug-Eluting Balloon versus Drug-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of Young Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

Cardiovascular Outcomes after Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Drug-Eluting Stent Placement for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by comparing with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement. Methods: By a systematic literature search, nine (five randomized controlled, two retrospective propensity-score matched, and two retrospective baseline-balanced) studies comparing the midterm clinical and angiographic outcomes after PCB angioplasty and DES placement were included, yielding 974 and 1130 ACS cases in PCB and DES groups, respectively. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac mortality (CM), all-cause mortality (ACM), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Late luminal loss (LLL) and bleeding events (BLD) were also estimated. Results: The frequencies of MACE in PCB and DES groups were 8.42% and 10.62%, respectively. PCB angioplasty had no significant impacts on all of MACE (risk ratio: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.68-1.18, p = 0.44), CM, ACM, MI, TVR, TLR, BLD, and LLL, compared to DES placement in random-effects model. Conclusions: The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed the feasibility of PCB angioplasty for the de novo lesions in patients with ACS in comparison with DES placement by the emergent procedures.

Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established strategy for coronary artery disease. However, the new generation drug-eluting stent (DES) is recommended for patients with Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for coronary artery revascularization. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy of DCBs in patients with AMI undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We searched the WOS, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL till March 2023, for studies that compared DCBs versus DES in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. We used a random-effects model to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, Late lumen Loss (LLL), and minimum lumen diameter (MLD) between the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comprising 2644 patients were included. The pooled OR showed non-inferiority of DCB over DES in terms of MACE (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.57 to 1.40], p = 0.63). When we defined MACE as a composite of cardiac death, MI, and TLR; the pooled OR favored DCB over DES (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.28 to 0.9], p = 0.02). Moreover, DCB was not inferior to DES in terms of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.8, p = 0.73), cardiac mortality, (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.56, p = 0.29), MI (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.34 to 2.29, p = 0.79), stent thrombosis (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.35 to 4.23, p = 0.76), TLR (OR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.93, p = 0.8), LLL (MD = -0.6, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.19, p = 0.64), or MLD (MD = -0.4, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.25, p = 0.76).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicated that DCB intervention was not inferior to DES in the PCI setting in patients with AMI, and can be recommended as a feasible strategy in AMI.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023412757.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Lesions in Large Vessels: A Study-Level Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) can be used as an alternative to drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with de novo small vessel coronary artery disease. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of solely using DCB versus DES in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo coronary lesions in large vessels.

METHOD

A database search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and http://Clinicaltrials.gov for trials comparing DCB only with DES in treating de novo coronary lesions in large vessels. Efficacy outcomes included coronary angiography (CAG), follow-up minimal lumen diameter (MLD), and late luminal loss (LLL). Safety outcomes included target lesion failure [TLF: cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR)] and their individual components.

RESULTS

We included seven randomized control trials (RCTs) with 816 patients, of which 422 and 394 patients were in the DCB and DES groups, respectively. MLD measured during the 6-12 months follow-up in the DCB group was statistically significantly smaller than in the DES group (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07, P = 0.003, I2 = 52%). LLL measured at 6-12 months follow-up was statistically significantly lower in the DCB group than in the DES group (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.05, P = 0.003, I2 = 60%). TLF, cardiac death, MI, and TLR, were not statistically significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Use of DCB was associated with less LLL at 6-12 months than DES and was not associated with any increase in adverse clinical events. This data suggests DCB are as effective in treating de novo coronary lesions in large vessels as DES.