Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the gradual narrowing of the stented coronary segment, presenting as angina or leading to an acute myocardial infarction. Although its incidence has decreased with the use of newer drug-eluting stents (DES), it still carries significant mortality and morbidity risks. We compared the 2 most common interventions for managing DES-related ISR: drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and DES. Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing DCB with DES in patients with DES-ISR. The Mantel-Haenszel method with a random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios. 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 (risk ratio 1.41, p = 0.02) compared with DES. No difference was observed in all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or stroke between the 2 intervention arms. In conclusion, management of DES-ISR with DCB has a higher risk of target lesion revascularization compared with re-stenting with DES. The 2 therapeutic interventions are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety profile.

Gender-based disparities in outcomes of coronary bifurcation stenting in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Around 15-20% of lesions necessitating percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are attributed to coronary bifurcation lesions. We aim to study gender-based differences in PCI outcomes among bifurcation stents. METHODS: 3 studies were included after thorough systematic search using MEDLINE (EMBASE and PubMed). CRAN-R software using the Metabin module was used for statistical analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated using the random effect model and the Mantel-Haenszel method, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) used to determine statistical significance. Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins I2. RESULT: Women exhibited a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.76, I2 = 0%, P < 0.0001), post-procedural bleeding (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.47-0.6, I2 = 0%, P < 0.0001) and post-procedure stroke (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-1.0, I2 = 0%, P < 0.06) as compared to men. However, there were no significant differences in terms of myocardial infarction (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.22-3.27, I2 = 49.4%, P < 0.80) and cardiac tamponade (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.06; 5.72, I2 = 0%, P < 0.6821) in both groups. CONCLUSION: Our study reveals a noteworthy increase in in-hospital mortality in women, which could be attributed to a higher rate of major bleeding, advanced age, increased co-morbidities, and complex pathophysiology of the lesion in comparison to men. Further studies are required to gain a better understanding of the precise mechanisms thus enhancing procedural outcomes.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty for In-stent Restenosis of Coronaries.

BACKGROUND: Despite the advent of newer stents, in-stent restenosis has been a persistent and formidable challenge. Trials have demonstrated the superiority of drug-coated balloons (DCB) over plain-old balloon angioplasty (POBA). A recent AGENT IDE trial highlighted the need for a more comprehensive understanding hence we conducted a meta-analysis aimed at elucidating their respective clinical outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was conducted by 2 investigators (SS and MH) using MEDLINE (EMBASE and PubMed) using a systematic search strategy by PRISMA till November 01, 2023. CRAN-R software was used for statistical analysis. The quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Supplemental Table 5). RESULTS: We included 6 studies with a total of 1171 patients. Our analysis showed decreased odds of multiple outcomes with statistically significant results including TVR (OR 0.33, CI 0.19-0.57), TVF (OR 0.30, CI 0.09-0.99), TLR (OR 0.22, CI 0.10-0.46), restenosis (OR 0.1343, CI 0.06-0.27), and MACE (OR 0.2 CI 0.12-0.37). Although MI and all-cause mortality showed decreased odds with all-cause mortality at 0.8 (95% CI: 0.363-2.09), and MI at 0.6 (95% CI: 0.0349-1.07), the reductions did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Our analysis by scrutinizing six RCTs favored DCB over POBA. However, extensive research for deeper understanding cannot be overemphasized.

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.