The role of optimal lesion preparation for de-novo coronary vessels when a stentless intervention strategy is planned

Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Stent for de novo Non-small Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been an attractive option in de novo vessels. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB vs. stent for treating de novo lesions in non-small vessels.

Methods: Studies in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched (from their commencement to March 2021). This meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.3.

Results: A total of 3 random controlled trials (RCTs) with 255 patients and 2 observational studies (OS) with 265 patients were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. It could be observed that DCB presented no significant difference in cardiac death (CD) (RR 0.33, 95% CI [0.01, 8.29], p = 0.50 in OS), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.49, 95% CI [0.09, 2.50], p = 0.39 in RCT), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR 0.64, 95% CI [0.19, 2.18], p = 0.47 in RCT) (RR 1.72, 95% CI [0.56, 5.26], p = 0.34 in OS), and late lumen loss (LLL) (SMD −0.48, 95% CI [−1.32, 0.36], p = 0.26 in RCT) for de novo non-small coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with stents, whereas minimal lumen diameter (MLD) including MLD1 (SMD −0.67, 95% CI [−0.92 −0.42], p < 0.00001 in RCT) and MLD2 (SMD −0.36, 95% CI [−0.61 −0.11], p = 0.004 in RCT) was smaller in DCB group.

Conclusion: This systematic review showed that DCB might provide a promising way on de novo non-small coronary artery disease compared with stents. However, more RCTs are still needed to further prove the benefits of the DCB strategy.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

Outcomes during the first year following spontaneous coronary artery dissection: A systematic timeframe pooled analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare the incidence and timing of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within the first year after spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) according to the management strategy: conservative versus invasive.

BACKGROUND

Treatment of SCAD remains controversial.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of studies providing separate individual clinical outcomes for conservative and invasive treatment strategies within 1 year after SCAD was performed. The primary outcome measure was MACE incidence within three predefined study periods after SCAD, namely "in-hospital", "discharge-to-6-months" and "6-to-12-months". MACE was defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, heart failure and SCAD recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (444 patients) were included; 277 (62%) patients were treated conservatively and 167 (38%) invasively. Within 1-year follow-up, 39 (67%) MACE occurred during the in-hospital period compared to 10 (17%) in the "discharge-to-6 months" period and 9 (16%) in the "6-to-12-months" period (p < 0.0001 for the overall comparison). MACE incidence was also significantly different between the three study periods in the conservatively-treated group (23 [78%] vs. 7 [23%] vs. 0 [0%], respectively; p < 0.0001) and the invasively-treated group (12 [66%] vs. 3 [17%] vs. 3 [17%], respectively; p < 0.0001), although no significant difference was found regarding MACE incidence in the intra-period comparisons between conservative and invasive treatment strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis showed that most MACE following SCAD occurred during the in-hospital period compared to the following two semesters, regardless of the treatment strategy. No difference regarding MACE incidence was found between conservative and invasive strategies in each study period.