Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Abstract

Individual randomized trials comparing drug-eluting balloons (DEB) versus everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) were underpowered for clinical end-points. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of DEB versus EES for any ISR. Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials which compared DEB versus EES for any ISR (i.e., drug eluting or bare metal stents). Summary estimate risk ratios (RRs) were constructed using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. Five trials with 962 patients were included. In-segment minimum lumen diameter (MLD) was lower with DEB (standardized mean difference -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.46 - -0.01) on angiographic follow-up at a mean of 8.6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60-2.19), but TVR was increased with DEB at 3 years (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.15-3.03). The risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was statistically increased with DEB (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.13-4.19) at a mean of 24.4 months. There was no difference in the risk of MI, stent thrombosis, cardiac mortality and all-cause mortality between both groups. In patients with any type of ISR, DEB was associated a similar risk of TVR at 1-year, but increased risk of TVR and TLR at longer follow-up, as compared with EES. The quality of evidence was moderate, suggesting the need for further randomized trials with longer follow-up to confirm the role of DEB in the management of ISR.