TY - JOUR
T1 - Systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes with drug-coated balloons vs. stenting in acute myocardial infarction
AU - Megaly, Michael
AU - Buda, Kevin G.
AU - Xenogiannis, Iosif
AU - Vemmou, Evangelia
AU - Nikolakopoulos, Ilias
AU - Saad, Marwan
AU - Rinfret, Stéphane
AU - Abbott, J. Dawn
AU - Aronow, Herbert D.
AU - Garcia, Santiago
AU - Pershad, Ashish
AU - Burke, M. Nicholas
AU - Brilakis, Emmanouil S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics.
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - The role of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies comparing the outcomes of DCBs vs. stenting in AMI patients. Four studies with 497 patients (534 lesions) were included (three randomized controlled trials and one observational study). During a mean follow-up of 9 months (range 6–12 months), DCBs were associated with similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (5% vs. 4.4%; OR 1.24, 95% CI: [0.34, 4.51], p = 0.74, I2 = 35%), all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; OR 077, 95% CI: [0.15, 3.91], p = 0.75, I2 = 25%), cardiac death (0.01% vs. 0.02%; OR 0.64, 95% CI: [0.16, 2.64], p = 0.54), myocardial infarction (0% vs. 1.4%; OR 0.18, 95% CI: [0.01, 3.56], p = 0.26), and target lesion revascularization (3.7% vs. 2%; OR 1.74, 95% CI: [0.42, 7.13], p = 0.44, I2 = 17%) compared with stenting. During a mean follow-up of 7 months (range 6–9 months), DCBs had similar late lumen loss compared with stenting (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI [– 0.21–0.28], p = 0.77, I2 = 92%). In patients with AMI, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of clinical and angiographic outcomes between AMI patients treated with DCB and DES. Larger studies with longer-term follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of DCBs in this setting.
AB - The role of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies comparing the outcomes of DCBs vs. stenting in AMI patients. Four studies with 497 patients (534 lesions) were included (three randomized controlled trials and one observational study). During a mean follow-up of 9 months (range 6–12 months), DCBs were associated with similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (5% vs. 4.4%; OR 1.24, 95% CI: [0.34, 4.51], p = 0.74, I2 = 35%), all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; OR 077, 95% CI: [0.15, 3.91], p = 0.75, I2 = 25%), cardiac death (0.01% vs. 0.02%; OR 0.64, 95% CI: [0.16, 2.64], p = 0.54), myocardial infarction (0% vs. 1.4%; OR 0.18, 95% CI: [0.01, 3.56], p = 0.26), and target lesion revascularization (3.7% vs. 2%; OR 1.74, 95% CI: [0.42, 7.13], p = 0.44, I2 = 17%) compared with stenting. During a mean follow-up of 7 months (range 6–9 months), DCBs had similar late lumen loss compared with stenting (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI [– 0.21–0.28], p = 0.77, I2 = 92%). In patients with AMI, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of clinical and angiographic outcomes between AMI patients treated with DCB and DES. Larger studies with longer-term follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of DCBs in this setting.
KW - Acute myocardial infarction
KW - Drug-coated balloons
KW - Drug-eluting balloons
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092271668&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85092271668&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s12928-020-00713-y
DO - 10.1007/s12928-020-00713-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 33037991
AN - SCOPUS:85092271668
SN - 1868-4300
VL - 36
SP - 481
EP - 489
JO - Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics
JF - Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics
IS - 4
ER -