Comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent in patients with in-stent restenosis: Insight from randomized controlled trials

Abstract Backgrounds In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains an important issue even in the current drug-eluting stent (DES) era. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) as compared with DES for the treatment of ISR. Methods The published liter...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of cardiology 2015-01, Vol.179, p.424-429
Hauptverfasser: Mamuti, Wahafu, Ablimit, Alimjan, Kelimu, Wumaierjiang, Rao, Fang, Jiamali, Abulimiti, Zhang, Wei, Pei, Xiaoli, Zhang, Feng
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Backgrounds In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains an important issue even in the current drug-eluting stent (DES) era. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) as compared with DES for the treatment of ISR. Methods The published literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases from January 2005 to February 2014. All randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared DEB with DES in patients with ISR. Results Prespecified criteria were met by 4 trials involving 803 patients. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint (12-month major adverse cardiac events) between the 2 groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.04, P = 0.80). The incidence of death (RR 0.81, P = 0.62), myocardial infarction (RR 0.66, P = 0.29), and target lesion revascularization (RR 1.35, P = 0.12) in the DEB group was also similar to those in the DES group. Conclusions This meta-analysis showed that DEB was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to DES for the treatment of ISR. DEB might be the preferred interventional strategy for patients with ISR by obviating the need of additional stent layer.
ISSN:0167-5273
1874-1754
DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.11.114