Drug-Coated versus Uncoated Balloon for Side Branch Protection in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated with Provisional Stenting Using Drug-Eluting Stents: A Meta-analysis

Background. Provisional stenting using drug-eluting stents (DES) has become the preferred treatment for coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs). We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of side branch (SB) protection using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus an uncoated balloon (UCB) during th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of clinical practice (Esher) 2022, Vol.2022, p.5892589-10
Main Authors: Jiang, Zhi-Ming, Liu, Le
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - adverse effects
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - methods
Asymmetry
Balloon treatment
Clinical outcomes
Coronary Angiography
Coronary Artery Disease - therapy
Drug delivery
Drug-Eluting Stents
Heart
Humans
Hyperplasia
Implants
Lesions
Meta-analysis
Optimization techniques
Patients
Smooth muscle
Stenosis
Stents
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background. Provisional stenting using drug-eluting stents (DES) has become the preferred treatment for coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs). We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of side branch (SB) protection using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus an uncoated balloon (UCB) during the procedure. Methods. Relevant randomized and nonrandomized studies were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, and CNKI databases. We used a random-effect model to pool the data by incorporating the heterogeneity between the included studies. Results. Overall, 803 patients with CBLs treated with provisional stenting using DES were included from seven studies. With a follow-up duration of 6 to 12 months, SB protection with DCB was associated with a lower degree of postoperative diameter stenosis (mean difference (MD): −11.35%, 95% confidence interval (CI): −14.17 to−8.53, p
ISSN:1368-5031
1742-1241
1742-1241
DOI:10.1155/2022/5892589