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 Coronary CT Angiographic and Flow Reserve-Guided Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Prognostic Implications of Plaque Characteristics and Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Physiological Stratification of Patients With Angina Due to Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction 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

Original Research2015 Nov 4;351:h5392.

JOURNAL:BMJ. Article Link

Treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis: systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of 24 randomised trials and 4880 patients

Giacoppo D, Gargiulo G, Capodanno D et al. Keywords: Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty; Vascular Brachytherapy; Cutting and Scoring Balloons; Rotational Atherectomy; Laser Techniques; Repeat Stenting with Bare Metal Stents; Repeat Stenting with Drug-Eluting Stents; Drug-Coated Balloons

ABSTRACT


STUDY QUESTION - What is the most safe and effective interventional treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis?


METHODS - In a hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and major scientific websites were screened up to 10 August 2015. Randomised controlled trials of patients with any type of coronary in-stent restenosis (either of bare metal stents or drug eluting stents; and either first or recurrent instances) were included. Trials including multiple treatments at the same time in the same group or comparing variants of the same intervention were excluded. Primary endpoints were target lesion revascularisation and late lumen loss, both at six to 12 months. The main analysis was complemented by network subanalyses, standard pairwise comparisons, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS - Twenty four trials (4880 patients), including seven interventional treatments, were identified. Compared with plain balloons, bare metal stents, brachytherapy, rotational atherectomy, and cutting balloons, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents were associated with a reduced risk of target lesion revascularisation and major adverse cardiac events, and with reduced late lumen loss. Treatment ranking indicated that drug eluting stents had the highest probability (61.4%) of being the most effective for target lesion vascularisation; drug coated balloons were similarly indicated as the most effective treatment for late lumen loss (probability 70.3%). The comparative efficacy of drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents was similar for target lesion revascularisation (summary odds ratio 1.10, 95% credible interval 0.59 to 2.01) and late lumen loss reduction (mean difference in minimum lumen diameter 0.04 mm, 95% credible interval -0.20 to 0.10). Risks of death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were comparable across all treatments, but these analyses were limited by a low number of events. Trials had heterogeneity regarding investigation periods, baseline characteristics, and endpoint reporting, with a lack of information at long term follow-up. Direct and indirect evidence was also inconsistent for the comparison between drug eluting stents and drug coated balloons.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS - Compared with other currently available interventional treatments for coronary in-stent restenosis, drug coated balloons and drug eluting stents are associated with superior clinical and angiographic outcomes, with a similar comparative efficacy.

FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING - This study received no external funding. The authors declare no competing interests. No additional data available.

© Giacoppo et al 2015.