title: Drug eluting balloons for de novo coronary lesions - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The role of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) is unclear. Increasing evidence has shown a benefit for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Its effect on de novo coronary lesions is more controversial. Several smaller randomized trials found conflicting results.
  
  
  METHODS
  This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effect of local Paclitaxel delivery/drug eluting balloons (DEB) (+/- bare metal stent) compared to current standard therapy (stenting) to treat de novo coronary lesions. Data sources for RCT were identified through a literature search from 2005 through 28 December 2012. The main endpoints of interest were target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), binary in-segment restenosis, stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), late lumen loss (LLL) and mortality. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eight studies (11 subgroups) and a total of 1,706 patients were included in this analysis. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 to 12 months. Overall, DEB showed similar results to the comparator treatment. The relative risk (RR) for MACE was 0.95 (0.64 to 1.39); P = 0.776, for mortality it was 0.79 (0.30 to 2.11), P = 0.644, for stent thrombosis it was 1.45 (0.42 to 5.01), P = 0.560, for MI it was 1.26 (0.49 to 3.21), P = 0.629, for TLR it was 1.09 (0.71 to 1.68); P = 0.700 and for binary in-stent restenosis it was 0.96 (0.48 to 1.93), P = 0.918. Compared to bare metal stents (BMS), DEB showed a lower LLL (- 0.26 mm (-0.51 to 0.01)) and a trend towards a lower MACE risk (RR 0.66 (0.43 to 1.02)).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Overall, drug-eluting balloons (+/- bare metal stent) are not superior to current standard therapies (BMS or drug eluting stent (DES)) in treating de novo coronary lesions. However, the performance of DEB seems to lie in between DES and BMS with a trend towards superiority over BMS alone. Therefore, DEB may be considered in patients with contraindications for DES. The heterogeneity between the included studies is a limitation of this meta-analysis; different drug-eluting balloons have been used.
authors: Heart Hospital, University College London Hospital, 16-18 Westmoreland Street, London, W1G 8PH, UK.
authors: Georg M
authors: GM
authors: Fröhlich
authors: Alexandra J
authors: AJ
authors: Lansky
authors: Dennis T
authors: DT
authors: Ko
authors: Olga
authors: O
authors: Archangelidi
authors: Rodney
authors: R
authors: De Palma
authors: Adam
authors: A
authors: Timmis
authors: Pascal
authors: P
authors: Meier
mesh_terms: D002317:Cardiovascular Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D003324:Coronary Artery Disease / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000473:pathology; D016503:Drug Delivery Systems / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D017239:Paclitaxel / Q000008:administration & dosage; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D002317:Cardiovascular Agents; D017239:Paclitaxel
references: Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
references: 3802833
references: Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
references: 12111919
references: JAMA. 2011 Jul 6;306(1):53-61
references: 21730241
references: JAMA. 1999 Sep 15;282(11):1054-60
references: 10493204
references: Lancet. 2007 Sep 15;370(9591):937-48
references: 17869634
references: BMC Med. 2011 Mar 30;9:31
references: 21450084
references: Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Aug;2(4):294-301
references: 20031731
references: Int J Cardiol. 2012 Nov 1;161(1):4-12
references: 21955612
references: Clin Res Cardiol. 2012 Jun;101(6):469-76
references: 22293991
references: Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2013;14(1):76-90
references: 23092260
references: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Dec 1;80(7):1138-46
references: 22422607
references: Circulation. 2012 Sep 4;126(10):1225-36
references: 22824435
references: Heart. 2013 Mar;99(5):327-33
references: 23335497
references: Minerva Med. 2012 Dec;103(6):503-11
references: 23229369
references: Heart. 2012 Dec;98(23):1701-9
references: 22942292
references: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Jun 19;59(25):2327-37
references: 22503057
references: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2473-80
references: 23158530
references: Arch Intern Med. 2012 Aug 13;172(15):1145-52
references: 22777536
references: Eur Heart J. 2012 Mar;33(5):606-13
references: 22232428
references: Eur Heart J. 2013 Jun;34(23):1705-7
references: 23136400
references: Eur Heart J. 2012 Mar;33(5):614-21
references: 21969521
references: Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014 Apr;21(4):411-24
references: 23152364
references: Lancet. 2012 Apr 14;379(9824):1393-402
references: 22445239
references: Circulation. 2000 Nov 21;102(21):2593-8
references: 11085962
references: J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009 Jan;172(1):137-159
references: 19381330
references: Eur Heart J. 2014 Oct 1;35(37):2541-619
references: 25173339
references: Heart. 2010 Aug;96(16):1291-6
references: 20659948
references: BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
references: 19622551
references: Eur Heart J. 2010 Jan;31(2):177-86
references: 19903684
references: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Aug 31;56(10 Suppl):S43-78
references: 20797503
references: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Sep 1;76(3):395-403
references: 20839356
references: Eur Heart J. 2012 Dec;33(24):3078-87
references: 23091199
references: Eur Heart J. 2012 Jun;33(11):1325-33
references: 22507972
references: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jan 1;81(1):E23-8
references: 22431239
references: EuroIntervention. 2011 May;7 Suppl K:K83-92
references: 22027736
references: Heart. 2011 Aug;97(16):1338-42
references: 21617163
references: Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2006 Jun 3;58(3):377-86
references: 16650911