Comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

• Main Authors: Lulu Liu, Bin Liu, Jiajun Ren, Gang Hui, Chao Qi, Junnan Wang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2018-03-01
• Series: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
• Subjects: Coronary artery disease; Drug-eluting balloon; Drug-eluting stent; Meta-analysis
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12872-018-0771-y

Abstract Background Drug-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. Methods We 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. Results Twenty-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). Conclusions DEB is equivalent to DES in terms of safety for managing CAD, and DEB may be considered as an alternative choice for treatment of CAD.