Abstract

BackgroundThis quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) vs. uncoated balloon (UCB) in patients with femoropopliteal arterial occlusive disease.MethodsElectronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEB and UCB till November 2018. The random-effects model was used for conducting pooled analyses.ResultsSeventeen RCTs with 2706 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. Patients who received DEB had higher levels of minimal luminal diameter (MLD) at 6 (WMD: 0.77; 95%CI: 0.53 to 1.02; P < 0.001) and 12 months (WMD: 1.33; 95%CI: 0.93 to 1.73; P < 0.001) than those who received UCB. DEB reduced the late lumen loss (LLL) levels after 6 (WMD: -0.57; 95%CI: − 1.07 to − 0.06; P = 0.029) and 12 months (WMD: -0.95; 95%CI: − 1.28 to − 0.62; P < 0.001). DEB was found not superior over UCB on primary patency after 6 months (RR: 1.44; 95%CI: 0.88–2.35; P = 0.149), whereas DEB increased the primary patency after 12 (RR: 1.51; 95%CI: 1.25–1.83; P < 0.001) and 24 months (RR: 1.51; 95%CI: 1.30–1.77; P < 0.001). Patients who received DEB had reduced the risk of restenosis after 6 (RR: 0.47; 95%CI: 0.33–0.67; P < 0.001) and 12 months (RR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.35–0.85; P = 0.008). DEB reduced the risk of major adverse events after 6 (RR: 0.30; 95%CI: 0.14–0.61; P = 0.001), 12 (RR: 0.49; 95%CI: 0.32–0.76; P = 0.001) and 24 months (RR: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.41–0.92; P = 0.018).ConclusionsDEB yielded additional benefits on MLD, LLL, primary patency, restenosis, TLR, and major adverse events than UCB in patients with femoropopliteal arterial occlusive disease.

Highlights

  • This quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) vs. uncoated balloon (UCB) in patients with femoropopliteal arterial occlusive disease

  • Patients who received DEB had higher levels of minimal luminal diameter (MLD) at 6 (WMD: 0.77; 95%confidence interval (CI): 0.53 to 1.02; P < 0.001) and 12 months (WMD: 1.33; 95%CI: 0.93 to 1.73; P < 0.001) than those who received UCB

  • Patients who received DEB had reduced the risk of restenosis after 6 (RR: 0.47; 95%CI: 0.33–0.67; P < 0.001) and 12 months (RR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.35–0.85; P = 0.008)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) vs. uncoated balloon (UCB) in patients with femoropopliteal arterial occlusive disease. A drug-eluting balloon (DEB) using paclitaxel that is homogeneously coated on the balloon surface is recommended for PAD, which is subsequently released into the lesion upon contact with the vessel wall. It could improve the blood flow rate and reduce restenosis than drug-coated stents [5]. The analysis was conducted based on just nine studies and whether the treatment effects of DEB versus uncoated balloon (UCB) for femoropopliteal arterial occlusive disease are different according to the patients’ characteristics are not illustrated. The current quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of DEB with UCB in patients with femoropopliteal arterial occlusive disease

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call