CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血流储备分数

Abstract

Recommended Article

The Impact of Coronary Physiology on Contemporary Clinical Decision Making Physiological Stratification of Patients With Angina Due to Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Coronary Physiology in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Prognostic Implications of Plaque Characteristics and Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI) Utilization and Outcomes of Measuring Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease The impact of downstream coronary stenoses on fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate left main disease Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation

Review Article2018 Nov 29.

JOURNAL:Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Outcomes with drug-coated balloons in small-vessel coronary artery disease

Megaly M, Rofael M, Saad M et al. Keywords: drug-coated balloons; drug-eluting balloons; small-vessel disease coronary disease

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of small-vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) is associated with increased risk of restenosis. The use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in SVD has received limited study.


OBJECTIVES - To assess the outcomes of DCB in the treatment of SVD compared with the standard of care.


METHODS - We performed a meta-analysis of all studies published between January 2000 and September 2018 reporting the outcomes of DCB versus other modalities in the treatment of de novo SVD.


RESULTS - Seven studies with 1,824 patients (1,938 lesions) were included (four randomized controlled trials and three observational studies). During a mean follow-up of 14.5 ± 10 months, DCBs were associated with a similar risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.84, P = 0.97) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.51, 1.45, P = 0.57) compared with drug-eluting stents (DES). During a mean follow-up of 7 ± 1.5 months, DCBs were associated with a significantly lower risk of TLR (OR: 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.88, P = 0.03) and binary restenosis (OR: 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.37, P = <0.00001) compared with noncoated balloon angioplasty.


CONCLUSION - The use of DCBs in SVD is associated with comparable outcomes when compared with DES and favorable outcomes when compared with balloon angioplasty.

© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.