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

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon for de novo lesions of large coronary arteries: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is a novel approach to avoiding stent-related complications and has proven effective for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and small vessels. However, its role in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels is less settled.

Aims

To estimate the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon versus stent in the treatment of de novo lesions in large coronary arteries.

Methods

We searched the literature until April 2023. We judged the safety of DCB based on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), cardiac death, all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and bleeding event; and efficacy according to late lumen loss (LLL), minimum lumen diameter (MLD). We conducted subgroup analyses according to stent type and whether urgent PCI was required.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs were included. Overall, LLL (mean difference (MD) = -0.19, 95 % confidence interval (CI): -0.32 to -0.06, P = 0.003) was lower in the DCB group than in the Stent arm. This effect was consistent in subgroup analysis regardless of stent type and disease type. In terms of safety indicators, there were no significant differences between DCB and stent. The subgroup analyses found that safety indicators showed no significant differences between DCB and drug-eluting stent (DES), but TLR was lower in the DCB than in the bare metal stent (BMS). Moreover, in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), safety indicators and LLL showed no significant differences between DCB and DES, but MLD in the DCB was smaller. While in patients with excluded STEMI, MACE and TLR was lower in the DCB compared with the overall stent.

Conclusions

DCB could be a promising alternative for treating de novo lesions in large coronary arteries with satisfactory efficacy and low risk, superior to BMS and not inferior to DES, with a trend toward lower late lumen loss.

Comparison Between Drug-Coated Balloon and Stents in Large De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCT Data

PURPOSE

Although a number of studies involving small-vessel de novo coronary disease showed clinical benefits of drug-coated balloons (DCB), the role of DCB in large vessel lesions is still unclear.

METHODS

We searched main electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB with stents for large vessel de novo coronary artery disease. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE), composite cardiovascular death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

This study included 7 RCTs with 770 participants. DCB were associated with a marked risk reduction in MACE [Risk Ratio (RR): 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 to 0.97; P = 0.04], TLR (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.14; P = 0.10), and late lumen loss [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.57; 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.05; P = 0.03] as compared with stents. There is no significant difference in MI (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.54; P = 0.27), CD (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.78; P = 0.19), and minimal lumen diameter (SMD: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.72 to 0.05; P = 0.08) between groups. In subgroup analyses, the risk reduction of MACE persisted in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.89; P = 0.03), and patients receiving DCB vs. bare metal stent (RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.73; P = 0.01). In addition, there was no significant difference between the DCB group and the drug eluting stent group for MACE (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.60; P = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

DCB may be an effective therapeutic option in patients with large vessel de novo coronary artery disease.