首页> 外文期刊>Medicine. >Drug-coated balloon in combination with bare metal stent strategy for de novo coronary artery disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
【24h】

Drug-coated balloon in combination with bare metal stent strategy for de novo coronary artery disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

机译:药物涂层球囊与裸冠状动脉疾病的裸金属支架策略组合:符合Prisma标准的随机临床试验的荟萃分析

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: Studies examining the efficiency of drug-coated balloon (DCB) + bare metal stent (BMS) compared with stents alone for de novo lesions have reported inconsistent results. The present comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed and compared the clinical efficacy and safety of DCB + BMS with those of stents alone for de novo coronary artery disease. Methods: We formally searched electronic databases before September 2016 to identify potential studies. All RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they compared DCB + BMS with a control treatment (drug-eluting stent [DES] alone or BMS alone) in patients with de novo coronary artery disease. Results: Eleven RCTs with a total of 2196 patients met the inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis indicated DCB plus BMS was associated with poorer outcomes when compared with DES alone in primary endpoint {(in-segment late lumen loss [LLL]: mean difference [MD], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06–0.32; P = 0.0042) and (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACEs]: risk ratio [RR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.44–2.45; P < 0.0001)}. However, DCB + BMS had nonsignificantly lower LLL than BMS alone (in-segment LLL: MD, ?0.14; 95% CI, ?0.33–0.04; P = 0.24), and was more advantageous in reducing MACE incidence, with borderline significance (MACEs: RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45–0.99; P = 0.05). Conclusions: In summary, the present results do not favor the DCB + BMS strategy as an alternative therapeutic method to DES implantation for de novo coronary artery lesions in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Additional well-designed large RCTs with long-follow-up periods are required to clarify the inconsistent results.
机译:背景:研究药物涂层球囊(DCB)+裸金属支架(BMS)的效率研究与单独的De Novo病变的支架进行了额外的结果。结果不一致。本发明的随机对照试验(RCT)的综合性荟萃分析评估,并将DCB + BMS的临床疗效和安全性与单独用于诺夫冠状动脉疾病的支架进行比较。方法:我们在2016年9月之前正式搜索了电子数据库,以确定潜在的研究。如果他们将DCB + BMS与对照治疗进行比较(单独药物洗脱液或单独的BMS或单独的BMS),所有RCT均符合条件。结果:1196名患者的11个RCT符合纳入标准,包括在我们的荟萃分析中。与单独在初级终点{(段晚腔损失[LLL]中的DES相比,亚组分析表明DCB Plus BMS与较差的结果相关联:平均差异[MD],0.19; 95%置信区间[CI],0.06-0.32 ; p = 0.0042)和(主要不良心血管事件[舞蹈演员]:风险比[RR],1.88; 95%CI,1.44-2.45; P <0.0001)}。然而,DCB + BMS单价低于单独的LLL(IN-SENMENT LLL:MD,?0.14; 95%CI,Δ0.33-0.04; p = 0.24),并且在降低均衡率的情况下更有利(梯队:RR,0.67; 95%CI,0.45-0.99; P = 0.05)。结论:总之,目前的结果不利于DCB + BMS策略作为在经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)中脱诺冠状动脉病变的替代治疗方法。额外设计的大型RCT,需要长时间时间,以澄清不一致的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号