%0 Journal Article
%T Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo large vessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 2888 patients.
%A Caminiti R
%A Vizzari G
%A Ielasi A
%A Vetta G
%A Parlavecchio A
%A Della Rocca DG
%A Montonati C
%A Pellegrini D
%A Pellicano M
%A Tespili M
%A Micari A
%J Clin Res Cardiol
%V 0
%N 0
%D 2024 Jul 3
%M 38958753
%F 6.138
%R 10.1007/s00392-024-02481-8
%X <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, data regarding performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD) is still lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to January 24, 2024, for studies which compared the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels (≥ 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death (ACD), and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random effects model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI).<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>A total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2888 patients (DCB n = 1334; DES n = 1533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. No differences were observed between DCB and DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40-1.34]; p = 0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57-1.07]; p = 0.12), and LLL (MD - 0.14; 95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02]; p = 0.10) at follow-up. DES proved a higher mean acute gain versus DCB [1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60); p = 0.0006].<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Our meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a "metal-free" strategy in this subset of CAD.