• Lulu Liu, Bin Liu, Jiajun Ren, Gang Hui, Chao Qi, and Junnan Wang.
• Department of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Jilin University, No. 218 Ziqiang Street, Changchun, 130041, China.
• Bmc Cardiovasc Disor. 2018 Mar 2; 18 (1): 46.

BackgroundDrug-eluting balloons (DEB) have significant value for treating coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the merits of using DEB versus drug-eluting stents (DES) to treat CAD remain controversial. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of DEB and DES for treatment of CAD.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases for eligible trials comparing DEB with DES for treatment of CAD. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE); the secondary endpoints included in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL), binary restenosis (BR), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and mortality.ResultsTwenty-three trials with a total of 2712 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of MACE between the DEB and DES groups (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.87, 1.63); P = 0.27), or in the clinical outcomes of each of MACE's components, including TLR, MI and mortality. However, efficacy was significantly different between the DEB and DES groups, especially when we compared DEB to second-generation DES: in-lesion LLL (Mean Difference (MD) 0.11; (0.01, 0.22); P = 0.03); binary restenosis (RR 1.46; (1.00, 2.13); P = 0.05).ConclusionsDEB is equivalent to DES in terms of safety for managing CAD, and DEB may be considered as an alternative choice for treatment of CAD.

24 keywords...

hide…