A Meta-Analysis of 3-Year Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Small-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease
Pooled resultResult — go to the resultRelative risk 0.71 95% CI 0.36–1.41Authors' conclusion
Although sample sizes are small, 3-year outcomes suggest that DCB may be a reasonable alternative to DES for the treatment of small coronary arteries.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with de novo small-calibre coronary artery lesions (reference vessel diameter 2–3 mm)
- Participants
- 1,402 patients4 RCTs
- Comparison
- DCB vs drug-eluting stents (DES)
- DCBn = 706
- DESn = 696reference
- Outcome
- MACE
- Follow-up
- 3-year follow-up
Methodological detailsrandom effects
- Random effects
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Relative risk
0.71
95% CI 0.36–1.41
DCBvs DES
RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.36–1.41)
Further pooled results
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Target vessel thrombosisPotential signal for reduction with DCB | 0.25 (0.06–1.08) | |
| 0.050.21520Relative risk (log scale) |
Individual components of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)
- Most individual components of MACE were inconclusive
Original publication
A Meta-Analysis of 3-Year Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Small-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease. JACC Adv. Published 19 August 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →