PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 4, 2015BMJ148 citationsOpen Access

Treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis: systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of 24 randomised trials and 4880 patients

DGDaniele GiacoppoGGGiuseppe GargiuloPAPatrizia Aruta

Key Result

Drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents showed similar efficacy for target lesion revascularisation (OR 1.10; 95% CrI 0.59-2.01) and were superior to other treatments for in-stent restenosis.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis (n=4,880)

Structured PICO

Do drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents improve outcomes compared to other interventional treatments in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis?

P
Population
4,880 patients from 24 randomised trials with any type of coronary in-stent restenosis, evaluated at 6 to 12 months.
I
Intervention
Drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents
C
Comparator
Plain balloons, bare metal stents, brachytherapy, rotational atherectomy, and cutting balloons
O
Outcome
Target lesion revascularisation and late lumen loss, both at six to 12 months

Drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents are associated with superior clinical and angiographic outcomes compared to other treatments for coronary in-stent restenosis, with similar comparative efficacy between the two.

Main Result

Odds Ratio: 1.1 (95% CI 0.59–2.01)

Limitations

  • Analyses of death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were limited by a low number of events
  • Heterogeneity regarding investigation periods, baseline characteristics, and endpoint reporting
  • Lack of information at long term follow-up
  • Direct and indirect evidence was inconsistent for the comparison between drug eluting stents and drug coated balloons
  • Inconsistent direct and indirect evidence for the comparison between drug eluting stents and drug coated balloons
  • Low number of events for death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the most safe and effective interventional treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis? METHODS: In a hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and major scientific websites were screened up to 10 August 2015. Randomised controlled trials of patients with any type of coronary in-stent restenosis (either of bare metal stents or drug eluting stents; and either first or recurrent instances) were included. Trials including multiple treatments at the same time in the same group or comparing variants of the same intervention were excluded. Primary endpoints were target lesion revascularisation and late lumen loss, both at six to 12 months. The main analysis was complemented by network subanalyses, standard pairwise comparisons, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty four trials (4880 patients), including seven interventional treatments, were identified. Compared with plain balloons, bare metal stents, brachytherapy, rotational atherectomy, and cutting balloons, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents were associated with a reduced risk of target lesion revascularisation and major adverse cardiac events, and with reduced late lumen loss. Treatment ranking indicated that drug eluting stents had the highest probability (61.4%) of being the most effective for target lesion vascularisation; drug coated balloons were similarly indicated as the most effective treatment for late lumen loss (probability 70.3%). The comparative efficacy of drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents was similar for target lesion revascularisation (summary odds ratio 1.10, 95% credible interval 0.59 to 2.01) and late lumen loss reduction (mean difference in minimum lumen diameter 0.04 mm, 95% credible interval -0.20 to 0.10). Risks of death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were comparable across all treatments, but these analyses were limited by a low number of events. Trials had heterogeneity regarding investigation periods, baseline characteristics, and endpoint reporting, with a lack of information at long term follow-up. Direct and indirect evidence was also inconsistent for the comparison between drug eluting stents and drug coated balloons. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Compared with other currently available interventional treatments for coronary in-stent restenosis, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents are associated with superior clinical and angiographic outcomes, with a similar comparative efficacy. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: This study received no external funding. The authors declare no competing interests. No additional data available.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Giacoppo et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis in coronary in-stent restenosis (n=4,880). Drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents vs. plain balloons, bare metal stents, brachytherapy, rotational atherectomy, and cutting balloons was evaluated on target lesion revascularisation and late lumen loss (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.59-2.01). Drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents showed similar efficacy for target lesion revascularisation (OR 1.10; 95% CrI 0.59-2.01) and were superior to other treatments for in-stent restenosis.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a55509dec3873b6f9368d7bhttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5392
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper