Search

Background: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have promising results in the management of in-stent restenosis (ISR), still their role remains a major challenge, and not well established in contemporary clinical practice. Aims: To provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy and safety of DCBs in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane Central from inception until 30 March, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DCB versus DES in ISR patients. Our primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and late lumen loss (LLL). Secondary clinical endpoints were all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, TLR, TVR, and stent thrombosis, and angiographic outcomes were MLD, and in-stent binary restenosis. Results: Ten RCTs comprising 1977 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence of MACE was 15.57% in the DCB group compared to 14.13% in the DES group, with no significant difference in the risk of MACE following DCB (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87 to 1.44). Compared with the DES intervention, the risk of LLL was comparable to the DCB intervention (mean difference [MD] -0.08, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.02), while the incidence of TLR was increased in the DCB intervention (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.99). Conclusion: DCB was comparable to DES implantation is ISR patients regarding clinical outcomes, however it showed an increase in TLR events. Moreover, a RCT with large sample size and longer follow-up duration is warrened to validate these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established strategy for coronary artery disease. However, the new generation drug-eluting stent (DES) is recommended for patients with Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for coronary artery revascularization. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy of DCBs in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. Methods: We searched the WOS, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL till March 2023, for studies that compared DCBs versus DES in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. We used a random-effects model to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, Late lumen Loss (LLL), and minimum lumen diameter (MLD) between the two groups. Results: Thirteen studies comprising 2644 patients were included. The pooled OR showed non-inferiority of DCB over DES in terms of MACE (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.57 to 1.40], p = 0.63). When we defined MACE as a composite of cardiac death, MI, and TLR; the pooled OR favored DCB over DES (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.28 to 0.9], p = 0.02). Moreover, DCB was not inferior to DES in terms of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.8, p = 0.73), cardiac mortality, (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.56, p = 0.29), MI (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.34 to 2.29, p = 0.79), stent thrombosis (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.35 to 4.23, p = 0.76), TLR (OR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.93, p = 0.8), LLL (MD = -0.6, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.19, p = 0.64), or MLD (MD = -0.4, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.25, p = 0.76). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicated that DCB intervention was not inferior to DES in the PCI setting in patients with AMI, and can be recommended as a feasible strategy in AMI. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023412757. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis" published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. The correction addresses an error in the affiliation detail for one of the authors, Abdelrahman Hafez, which was incorrectly listed as "Institute of Medicine, National Research Mordovia State University, Saransk, Russia" instead of "Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt." The original article has been corrected. The publisher, Springer Nature, maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims and institutional affiliations. [Extracted from the article]