Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with in-stent restenosis: An updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have promising results in the management of in-stent restenosis (ISR), still their role remains a major challenge, and not well established in contemporary clinical practice.

AIMS

To provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy and safety of DCBs in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane Central from inception until 30 March, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DCB versus DES in ISR patients. Our primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and late lumen loss (LLL). Secondary clinical endpoints were all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, TLR, TVR, and stent thrombosis, and angiographic outcomes were MLD, and in-stent binary restenosis.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs comprising 1977 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of MACE was 15.57% in the DCB group compared to 14.13% in the DES group, with no significant difference in the risk of MACE following DCB (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87 to 1.44). Compared with the DES intervention, the risk of LLL was comparable to the DCB intervention (mean difference [MD] -0.08, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.02), while the incidence of TLR was increased in the DCB intervention (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.99).

CONCLUSION

DCB was comparable to DES implantation is ISR patients regarding clinical outcomes, however it showed an increase in TLR events. Moreover, a RCT with large sample size and longer follow-up duration is warrened to validate these results.

Recurrent Revascularization at 10 Years After Percutaneous Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with recurrence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains particularly challenging, with data and guideline recommendations for repeat percutaneous coronary intervention being scant.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term incidence of recurrent revascularization events after percutaneous treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis, 402 patients (500 lesions) assigned to plain balloon (PB), drug-coated balloon (DCB), or DES treatment in the randomized ISAR-DESIRE 3 (Efficacy Study of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon, -Stent vs. Plain Angioplasty for Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis) trial were followed up over a median of 10.3 years. The primary endpoint was total repeat target lesion revascularization (R-TLR) including all, first and recurrent, events.

RESULTS

At the end of follow-up, first R-TLR was required in 204 lesions, 82 in the PB group, 70 in the DCB group, and 52 in the DES group. The total number of R-TLRs was 373: 162 in the PB group, 124 in the DCB group, and 87 in the DES group. During the first year of follow-up, the risk for total R-TLR was reduced by DCB (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.24-0.54) and DES (HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.14-0.38) treatment compared with PB treatment. After 1 year, the risk for total R-TLR was nonsignificantly reduced by DCB treatment (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.51-1.16) and significantly reduced by DES treatment (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.95) compared with PB treatment. Risk in the DCB and DES groups was similar during (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.89-2.69) and after (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.82-1.92) 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The total number of R-TLRs over 10 years after treatment of patients with DES ISR was high. DCBs and particularly DES were able to reduce the need for both first and recurrent revascularization compared with PB treatment.

Long-term clinical safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon in the treatment of in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

There is a long-term safety issue in peripheral arterial disease patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon, this has also raised concerns on DCB in coronary intervention.

METHODS

Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine observational studies (OSs) were included with a total of 3,782 patients (1,827 in the DCB group, 1,955 in the drug-eluting stent [DES] group) being analyzed. The primary outcome measure-major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD), stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause death (AD), and coronary angiography outcomes included late lumen loss (LLL), minimum luminal diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

DCB treatment significantly reduced the LLL (MD: -0.13; [CI -0.23 to -0.03], p = .01). No difference was found for MLD (MD: -0.1; [CI -0.24 to 0.04], p = .17) and DS% (RR = 0.98 [CI 0.80-1.20], p = .86). There was no significant difference in TLR, TVR, MI, CD, ST, AD, and the overall incidence of MACEs between the two groups up to 3 years follow-up. Subgroup analysis for different type of ISR and DES showed no significant difference in the incidence of endpoints, and there is no difference when considering RCTs or OSs only.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of the DCB and DES in the treatment of ISR is comparable at up to 3 years follow-up.

Drug-Eluting Balloons versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Treating In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Heart Disease after PCI: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a common problem following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the best treatment strategy remains uncertain. There is some controversy over the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) for treating ISR.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was used to compare the efficacy of the DEB and second-generation DES in the treatment of ISR. The primary endpoint is the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoint is the occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death (ACM), cardiac death (CD), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), minimum luminal diameter (MLD), late luminal loss (LLL), binary restenosis (BR), and percent diameter stenosis (DS%).

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (4 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies) including 2020 patients with a follow-up of 6-25 months were included in the present study. There was a significant difference in the MLD between the two groups during follow-up (P=0.007, RR = 0.23, and 95% CI: 0.06-0.4 mm). There was no significant difference in LLL, BR, or DS% and the overall incidence of MACEs between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in the incidence of primary and secondary endpoints when considering RCTs or observational studies only.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of the DEB and second-generation DES in the treatment of ISR is comparable. However, our results need further verification through multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Drug-Eluting Balloon versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, drug-eluting balloon (DEB) appears to be an attractive alternative option for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Nevertheless, the clinical outcomes of DEB have seldom been compared to those of new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEB compared to those of new-generation DES in the treatment of ISR.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to November 2, 2017 was performed to identify pertinent articles comparing DEB to new-generation DES for the treatment of ISR. In addition, conference proceedings for the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and EuroPCR were also searched. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at the longest follow-up. Dichotomous variables were presented as risk ratios (RR s) with 95% confidence intervals (CI s), while the overall RR s were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies involving 2743 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, DEB was comparable to new-generation DES in terms of TLR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.89-1.72, P = 0.21), cardiac death (RR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.89-2.71, P = 0.12), major adverse cardiovascular event (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.98-1.48, P = 0.07), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.72-1.76, P = 0.62), and stent thrombosis (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.38-2.42, P = 0.92). However, DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality than new-generation DES (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.09-2.50, P = 0.02). This was especially true in the real-world observational studies (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.12-2.88, P = 0.02). In RCTs, however, no significant difference was found between the two treatment strategies in the risk of all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis showed that DEB and new-generation DES had comparable safety and efficacy for the treatment of ISR in RCTs. However, treatment with DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in the real-world nonrandomized studies.

Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis: Results From a Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of the RIBS IV and V Trials

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is more challenging than that of patients with bare-metal stent ISR. However, the results of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in these distinct scenarios remain unsettled.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A pooled analysis of the RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) randomized trials was performed using patient-level data to compare the efficacy of EES in bare-metal stent ISR and DES-ISR. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical in both trials. Results of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 patients treated with EES for DES-ISR. Baseline characteristics were more adverse in patients with DES-ISR, although they presented later and more frequently with a focal pattern. After intervention, minimal lumen diameter (2.22±0.5 versus 2.38±0.5 mm, P=0.01) was smaller in the DES-ISR group. Late angiographic findings (89.3% of eligible patients), including minimal lumen diameter (2.03±0.7 versus 2.36±0.6 mm, P<0.001) and diameter stenosis (23±22 versus 13±17%, P<0.001) were poorer in patients with DES-ISR. Results were consistent in the in-segment and in-lesion analyses. On multiple linear regression analysis, minimal lumen diameter at follow-up remained significantly smaller in patients with DES-ISR. Finally, at 1-year clinical follow-up (100% of patients), mortality (2.6 versus 0%, P<0.01) and need for target vessel revascularization (8 versus 2%, P=0.03) were higher in the DES-ISR group.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level pooled analysis of the RIBS IV and RIBS V randomized clinical trials suggests that EES provide favorable outcomes in patients with ISR. However, the results of EES are less satisfactory in patients with DES-ISR than in those with bare-metal stent ISR.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01239953 and NCT01239940.

A Randomized Comparison of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Any In-Stent Restenosis: The DARE Trial

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate the relative performance of a drug-eluting balloon (DEB) and a drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with any (bare-metal or drug-eluting stent) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

The treatment of ISR remains challenging in contemporary clinical practice.

METHODS

In a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients with any ISR were randomly allocated in a 1:1 fashion to treatment with a DEB (SeQuent Please paclitaxel-eluting balloon, B. Braun Melsungen, Melsungen, Germany), or a DES (XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California). The primary endpoint was noninferiority in terms of in-segment minimal lumen diameter (MLD) at 6-month angiographic follow-up. Secondary endpoints included angiographic parameters at 6 months and clinical follow-up up to 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 278 patients, of whom 56% had DES-ISR, were randomized at 8 sites to treatment with DEB (n = 141) or DES (n = 137). As compared with DEB, DES was associated with larger MLD and lower % stenosis immediately post-procedure (1.84 ± 0.46 vs. 1.72 ± 0.35; p = 0.018; and 26 ± 10% vs. 30 ± 10%; p = 0.03). Angiographic follow up was completed at 196 ± 53 days in 79% of patients. With respect to the primary endpoint of in-segment MLD at 6 months, DEB was noninferior to DES (DEB 1.71 ± 0.51 mm vs. DES 1.74 ± 0.61 mm; p for noninferiority <0.0001). Target vessel revascularization at 12-month follow-up was similar in both groups (DES 7.1% vs. DEB 8.8%; p = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ISR, treatment with DEB was noninferior compared with DES in terms of 6-month MLD. There were no differences in clinical endpoints, including target vessel revascularization up to 12 months. Therefore, use of a DEB is an attractive treatment option for in-stent restenosis, withholding the need for additional stent implantation.

Second-generation drug-eluting stents versus drug-coated balloons for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The benefit of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB) in coronary artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) for the prevention of target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, and mortality remains uncertain. Our aim was to synthesize the available evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that directly compare second-generation drug-eluting stents (SG-DES) and DCB for the treatment of coronary ISR.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs or observational studies, published up to March 15, 2017. A random effects model meta-analysis investigating clinical and angiographic outcomes was conducted for RCTs and observational studies that compared SG-DES versus DCB for the treatment of ISR.

RESULTS

Ten studies and 2,173 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The two treatment strategies were proven equal with regards to TLR, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and cardiac mortality in both randomized and observational studies. No difference was found among RCTs for all-cause mortality, while in observational studies, patients who were treated with SG-DES had a lower mortality compared to DCB (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27-0.83). In the pooled analysis also (RCTs and observational studies), SG-DES were associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to DCB. Patients treated with SG-DES were also superior in terms of minimal lumen diameter (standardized mean difference: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.12-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

The two treatment strategies are equal for the treatment of ISR, while the difference in all-cause mortality might be potentially explained by baseline differences in the two groups among real-world studies.

Initial and late efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents for small and non-small coronary lesions from evaluating delayed late loss study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2 years in patients in whom everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) were implanted in small and non-small vessels. A small vessel is an important risk factor for restenosis with BMSs, even in the first generation DESs. The 690 patients with 690 lesions implanted with an EES were enrolled and divided into two groups by vessel reference diameter (RD): >2.5 mm for non-small vessels (Non-S-group) and ≤2.5 mm for small vessels (S-group). Two years later, the 365 patients with no restenosis at 8 months who underwent angiography were enrolled into the late catch-up study. At the initial 8-month follow-up, the rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) of both groups were not significantly different (restenosis 3.9 vs 6.5%, p = 0.17; TLR 3.9 vs 6.5%, p = 0.17). At the late 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the late loss (0.36 ± 0.66 vs 0.34 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.14), net gain (1.50 ± 0.75 vs 1.26 ± 0.60 mm, p = 0.39), late catch-up restenosis rate (5.1 vs 3.4%, p = 0.38), TLR (4.9 vs 2.7%, p = 0.40), and delayed late loss (0.14 ± 0.58 vs 0.15 ± 0.49 mm, p = 0.10) between both groups. There is no correlation between delayed late loss and RD in all patients(r = -0.009) and in AMI patients (r = -0.004). These results demonstrate that the initial and late catch-up restenosis rates of small coronary vessels with EES placement were excellent, the same as for non-small coronary vessels. We suggest that involvement of small coronary arteries may not be a risk factor for restenosis and results of stenting for small coronary arteries with EES placement were excellent.

A novel approach to treat in-stent restenosis: 6- and 12-month results using the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold

AIMS

The treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. Small case series have described successful utilisation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) to treat ISR. We report our experience with this novel approach.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with ISR in native coronary arteries undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR were treated using BVS. A total of 84 ISR lesions were treated in 65 patients. The mean age was 66±11 years, 28% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 28% were diabetic. PCI was successful in all patients and all scaffolds were delivered and deployed successfully in the target lesion. All 65 patients had six-month follow-up and 49 patients had 12-month clinical follow-up. The target lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate was 3.1% at six months and 12.2% at 12 months. The mean duration from PCI to TLR was 301±148 days. No scaffold thrombosis occurred during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

This proof of concept study demonstrates that ISR treatment utilising BVS is feasible and appears to have acceptable target lesion failure rates. Prospective randomised trials are necessary to assess whether BVS are more effective than drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting balloons to treat ISR.

Efficacy of various percutaneous interventions for in-stent restenosis: comprehensive network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a difficult problem in interventional cardiology. The relative efficacy and safety of available interventions is not clear. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis using both direct evidence and indirect evidence to compare all available interventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched electronic databases for randomized trials comparing ≥2 treatments for ISR. A network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian approach. Eleven treatments were compared in 31 studies with 8157 patient-years follow-up. Compared with balloon angioplasty, everolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio [95% credibility interval], 0.13 [0.048-0.35]), paclitaxel-eluting balloon (0.32 [0.20-0.49]), paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon (0.054 [0.0017-0.5]), paclitaxel-eluting stent (0.39 [0.24-0.62]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.32 [0.18-0.50]) are associated with lower target vessel revascularization. Balloon angioplasty is not different from cutting balloon (0.73 [0.31-1.5]), excimer laser (0.89 [0.29-2.7]), rotational atherectomy (0.96 [0.53-1.7]), and vascular brachytherapy (0.60 [0.35-1.0]). In drug-eluting stent ISR, balloon angioplasty was inferior to everolimus-eluting stent (0.19 [0.049-0.76]), paclitaxel-eluting balloon (0.43 [0.18-0.80]), paclitaxel-eluting stent (0.35 [0.13-0.76]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.36 [0.11-0.86]) for target vessel revascularization. There was no difference between treatments in probable or definitive stent thrombosis. The results of binary restenosis and target lesion revascularization were similar. Paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon, everolimus-eluting stent, and paclitaxel-eluting balloon have the highest probability of being in the top 3 treatments based on low target lesion revascularization, but there was no statistical significant difference between them.

CONCLUSIONS

Balloon angioplasty is inferior to all drug-eluting treatments for ISR, including drug-eluting stent ISR. Drug-eluting stent, particularly everolimus-eluting stent, or paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon and paclitaxel-eluting balloon should be preferred for treating ISR.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Safety of Methotrexate and Its Possible Benefits on Restenosis After Bare-Metal Stent Deployment

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) revolutionized treatment of coronary artery disease. Drug-eluting stents are effective and safe but their cost is high, especially for some countries. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety of methotrexate (MTX) in patients who underwent PCI and the secondary goal was to evaluate the possibility that MTX has an impact on restenosis.

Methods

This was a transversal, prospective and descriptive study that recruited 16 patients in whom PCI was planned. MTX was administered to patients at a dose of 5 mg/week for 2 weeks before PCI and 8 weeks after PCI. Bare-metal stent (BMS) deployment was performed according to standard practice. Patients were monitored clinically every 15 days during the first 2 months after the procedure and monthly until 9 months after PCI.

Results

There were no immediate or late complications associated with PCI. Adverse events and side effects due to MTX occurred in three patients (prevalence 18.7%). These side effects are classified as minor complications. MTX was not discontinued due to these side effects. There were no reported cases of clinical restenosis.

Conclusions

MTX was safe in the study population and raised the possibility that a low-cost drug may have positive effects on restenosis after BMS implantation. However, studies with larger sample sizes and other imagine modalities (intravascular ultrasound and/or optical coherence tomography) are required to confirm this hypothesis.

Impact of total stent length after cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent implantation on 3-year clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess whether total stent length (TSL) after cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES) implantation was associated with long-term clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The impact of TSL after CoCr-EES implantation on long-term clinical outcomes remained unclear.

METHODS

A total of 1,007 consecutive patients with 1,382 lesions treated only with CoCr-EES were analyzed. Patients and lesions were divided into tertile group: TSL per patient (TSL-P) (PA [8-23 mm], n = 382; PB [23-46 mm], n = 312; and PC [46-204 mm], n = 313), and TSL per lesion (TSL-L) (LA [8-18 mm], n = 486; LB [18-28 mm], n = 475; and LC [28-140 mm], n = 421). The cumulative 3-year incidence of clinically driven target-lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) and definite stent thrombosis (ST) based on TSL-P and TSL-L groupings were accessed.

RESULTS

After inverse probability of weighted adjustment, the cumulative 3-year incidence of CD-TLR for the TSL-P and TSL-L were higher in the PC and LC groups than in the other groups (hazard ratio [HR] 2.92, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.66-5.15, P < 0.001 vs. PA; HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.47-4.20, P < 0.001 vs. PB; HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.15-3.28, P = 0.01 vs. LA; HR 2.80, 95% CI 1.73-4.54, P < 0.001 vs. LB, respectively). No significant differences in the cumulative 3-year incidence of definite ST were observed in both TSL-P and TSL-L groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TSL after CoCr-EES implantation has significantly impact on CD-TLR rate through 3 years, but it is not associated with an increased incidence of definite ST. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis: systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of 24 randomised trials and 4880 patients

STUDY QUESTION

What is the most safe and effective interventional treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis?

METHODS

In a hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and major scientific websites were screened up to 10 August 2015. Randomised controlled trials of patients with any type of coronary in-stent restenosis (either of bare metal stents or drug eluting stents; and either first or recurrent instances) were included. Trials including multiple treatments at the same time in the same group or comparing variants of the same intervention were excluded. Primary endpoints were target lesion revascularisation and late lumen loss, both at six to 12 months. The main analysis was complemented by network subanalyses, standard pairwise comparisons, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS

Twenty four trials (4880 patients), including seven interventional treatments, were identified. Compared with plain balloons, bare metal stents, brachytherapy, rotational atherectomy, and cutting balloons, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents were associated with a reduced risk of target lesion revascularisation and major adverse cardiac events, and with reduced late lumen loss. Treatment ranking indicated that drug eluting stents had the highest probability (61.4%) of being the most effective for target lesion vascularisation; drug coated balloons were similarly indicated as the most effective treatment for late lumen loss (probability 70.3%). The comparative efficacy of drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents was similar for target lesion revascularisation (summary odds ratio 1.10, 95% credible interval 0.59 to 2.01) and late lumen loss reduction (mean difference in minimum lumen diameter 0.04 mm, 95% credible interval -0.20 to 0.10). Risks of death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were comparable across all treatments, but these analyses were limited by a low number of events. Trials had heterogeneity regarding investigation periods, baseline characteristics, and endpoint reporting, with a lack of information at long term follow-up. Direct and indirect evidence was also inconsistent for the comparison between drug eluting stents and drug coated balloons.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Compared with other currently available interventional treatments for coronary in-stent restenosis, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents are associated with superior clinical and angiographic outcomes, with a similar comparative efficacy.

FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING

This study received no external funding. The authors declare no competing interests. No additional data available.