Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-coated balloons in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Abstract

The efficacy of drug-coated balloons (DCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) for coronary artery disease (CAD) remains inconclusive. Despite paclitaxel's common use in both DES and DCB, there is a lack of meta-analyses comparing paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of DES and DCB with paclitaxel. A systematic literature search of the Medline and Cochrane databases yielded six randomized controlled trials with 951 patients (1:1 ratio). Primary endpoints were mortality, target lesion vascularization (TLV), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Secondary endpoints included in-device binary stenosis, in-segment binary stenosis, late luminal loss (LLL), post-minimal lumen diameter (MLD), and post-diameter stenosis. Within the study populations, the incidence of previous MI was significantly lower in the PES group than in the PCB group (26.70% vs. 39.22%, OR:0.56, 95% CI [0.41-0.76], p=0.0002). The meta-analysis results showed that mortality (OR:1.57, 95% CI [0.67-3.66], p=0.29), TLV (OR:0.74, 95% CI [0.37-1.48], p=0.39), MI (OR:1.76, 95% CI [0.79-3.88], p=0.16), TVR (OR:0.76, 95% CI [0.51-1.12], p=0.16), and MACEs (OR, 1.11; 95% CI [0.48-2.58]; p=0.81) did not exhibit significant differences between the PES and PCB groups in CAD. Furthermore, in stent or in balloon binary stenosis (OR:0.80, 95% CI [0.34-1.87], p=0.60), in segment binary stenosis (OR:1.16, 95% CI [0.48-2.80], p=0.74), LLL (MD:0.03, 95% CI [-0.11 to 0.17], p=0.65), post MLD (MD:0.04, 95% CI [-0.23 to 0.30], p=0.77), and post diameter stenosis (MD:-5.48, 95% CI [-13.88 to 2.92], p=0.20) were similar in both groups. Our comprehensive analysis concludes that both PES and PCB manifest comparable effectiveness and safety in CAD management.