RESUMEN
In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the gradual narrowing of the stented coronary segment, presenting as angina or leading to an acute myocardial infarction. Although the incidence has decreased with the use of newer drug-eluting stents (DES), it still carries significant mortality & morbidity. We compared the two most common interventions, i.e. drug-coated balloons (DCB) vs drug-eluting stents (DES) for managing DES-related ISR. Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB to DES in patients with DES-ISR. The Mantel-Haenszel method with a random effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR). Five trials comprising 1,100 patients (577 in DCB and 523 in DES group) were included in the final study. The mean follow-up was 42 months. DCB was found to have a higher risk for target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR: 1.41, p: 0.02) compared to DES. No difference was observed in all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction, or stroke between the two intervention arms. In conclusion, management of DES-ISR with DCB has a higher risk of TLR as compared to re-stenting with DES. Both therapeutic interventions are comparable in other terms of efficacy and safety profile.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.