Drug-eluting stent vs. Balloon angioplasty in patients with in-stent restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: In-stent restenosis (ISR) is seen in up to 20% of cases and is the primary cause of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) failure. With the use of re-stenting with a drug-eluting stent (DES), plain old balloon angioplasty (BA) use is decreasing. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety profile of DES over BA in the management of ISR. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DES to BA for coronary ISR. The mantel-Haenszel method with a random effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR). RESULTS: Four trials comprising 912 patients (543 in DES and 369 in the BA group) were included in the final study. The mean follow-up was 45 months. DES was found to be superior with a lower requirement of target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.64, p-value <0.0001), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.44-0.78, p-value 0.0002) compared to BA. However, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion thrombosis were not different between the two intervention arms. CONCLUSION: DES was found to be superior to BA for the management of coronary ISR with a reduction in the risk of TLR and TVR. No difference in mortality, risk of MI, or target lesion thrombosis was observed between the two interventions.

Assessing the Efficacy of RADPAD Protection Drape in Reducing Radiation Exposure to Operators in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

One of the leading environmental hazards, ionizing radiation, is linked to several detrimental health consequences in the body. RADPAD (Worldwide Innovations & Technologies, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas) is a sterile, lead-free, lightweight, disposable radiation protection shield. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of RADPAD protection drapes in the cardiac catheterization lab and how they can aid interventional cardiologists in becoming subjected to less scatter radiation. PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies discussing the efficacy of RADPAD protection drapes in reducing radiation exposure to operators in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. A random-effects model was used to pool odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for endpoints: primary operator exposure dose, dose area product (DAP), relative exposure, and screening time. Our analysis included 892 patients from six studies. Compared to the No-RADPAD group, primary operator exposure dose (E) was significantly lower in the RADPAD group (OR: -0.9, 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.43, I2 = 80.5%, p = 0.0001). DAP was comparable between both groups (OR: 0.008, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.14, I2 = 0%, p = 0.9066). There was no difference in the relative exposure (E/DAP) (OR: -0.47, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.02, I2 = 0%, p = 0.90) and screening time (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.35, I2 = 0%, p = 0.22) between the two groups. The interventional cardiology laboratory is exposed to significantly less scatter radiation during procedures owing to the RADPAD protective drape. Consequently, all catheterization laboratories could be advised to employ RADPAD protective drapes.