Drug-eluting balloons versus drug-eluting stents for small vessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis of treatments for small vessels coronary artery disease between drug-eluting balloon (DEB) and drug-eluting stent (DES). METHOD: A meta-analysis comparing DEB and DES outcomes was performed using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR) or target vessel revascularization (TVR), and myocardial infarction (MI), death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were secondary outcomes. A total of six studies on 1813 patients were included. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in rates of TLR or TVR in the patients treated with the DEB strategy compares with the DES strategy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.61, P = 0.89] within a follow-up period of 9-24 months. There was a significant reduction in rates of MI and death in the patients treated with a DCB strategy compared with those treated with a DES strategy (3.7%, 17 of 460 vs 6.1%, 36 of 595; 2.4%, 11 of 460 vs 6.1%, 36 of 595, respectively), and this difference was statistically significant (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96, P = 0.04; OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.88, P = 0.02, respectively). There was no difference between DEB and DES strategies in rates of MACE (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.66-1.33, P = 0.73). CONCLUSION: In summary, this study demonstrates that treatment of small vessel (diameter ≤ 3 mm) coronary artery disease (CAD) with DEB may lead to improving outcomes compared with the use of DES within a follow-up period of 9-24 months. Further large clinical trials are needed to verify this conclusion.

An abluminal biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing coronary revascularization: 3-year clinical outcomes of a randomized non-inferiority trial.

The Cordimax stent has proved non-inferior to the Cypher Select durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent for the primary endpoint of angiographic in-stent late luminal loss and in-stent mean diameter stenosis at 9 months. The trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of the Cordimax stent with the Xience V stent in patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This randomized, multicenter trial enrolled 3697 patients treated with Cordimax stent (2460 patients) and Xience V stent (1237 patients). The primary efficacy endpoint was a target-lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year and the primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years. 3399 patients (91.9%) completed 3-year follow-up. At 1 year, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 86 (3.5%) patients in the Cordimax group versus 40 (3.2%) patients in the Xience V group (0.3% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -1.0-1.5%, Pnon-inferiority < 0.0001). At 3 years, the primary safety endpoint occurred in 39 (1.6%) patients in the Cordimax group versus 19 (1.5%) patients in the Xience V group (0.05% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -0.8-0.9%, Pnon-inferiority < 0.0001). The incidence of target lesion revascularization was low in Cordimax group compared with Xience V group (3.6% versus 5.1%, P = 0.03). There were no differences between Cordimax and Xience V in terms of Cardiac death (0.3% versus 0.4%, P = 0.70), myocardial infarction (1.2% versus 0.9%, P = 0.37), and the stent thrombosis (0.4% versus 0.6%, P = 0.61). In conclusion, safety and efficacy outcomes of Cordimax stent were non-inferior to the Xience V stent 3 years after stent implantation.

Meta-analysis of intracavitary electrocardiogram guidance for peripherally inserted central catheter placement.

BACKGROUND: Recently, intracavitary electrocardiogram technology has been applied to peripherally inserted central catheter placement and demonstrates many potential advantages. However, the tip positioning accuracy of intracavitary electrocardiogram technology compared to conventional X-ray method is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We did a meta-analysis to compare the tip positioning accuracy between intracavitary electrocardiogram technology and conventional X-ray method. DATA SOURCES: We searched several databases, including Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of science, and Embase. Additional studies were identified through hand searches of bibliographies and Internet searches. All human studies published in full text, abstract, or poster form were eligible for inclusion. Search terms included peripherally inserted central catheter, PICC, intracavitary electrocardiogram, IC-ECG, EKG, ECG, and catheter tip location. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled trials of using intracavitary electrocardiogram technology versus X-ray method for peripherally inserted central catheter placement were included. All studies included adult patients aged at least 18 years. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Independent extraction of articles by two authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. Of the 178 citations identified, 5 studies that included 1672 patients met the eligibility criteria. It was found that statistical heterogeneity existed among the various studies (I2 = 16%, p < 0.00001); therefore, the fixed effect model was used in the meta-analysis (p < 0.05). The meta-analysis compared the tip positioning accuracy between intracavitary electrocardiogram technology and X-ray method and showed that intracavitary electrocardiogram technology had a better positioning accuracy (odds ratio: 2.88, 95% confidence interval: 2.15-3.87, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Only five randomized trial met inclusion criteria, and the lack of an incomplete search led to the publication bias seen in these results. CONCLUSION: The intracavitary electrocardiogram method had a more favorable positioning accuracy versus traditional X-ray method for peripherally inserted central catheter placement in adult patients. The intracavitary electrocardiogram can be a promising technique to guide tip positioning of peripherally inserted central catheter.

Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Meta-analysis of Safety and Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are the main treatments used for atrial fibrillation (AF). In recent years, a number of articles comparing the 2 treatments have begun to emerge. Though, the influence of follow-up time in the meta-analysis was not considered in these articles. However, more recently, large-scale clinical trial articles have included follow-up with the patients up to 5 years after treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the impact of variable follow-up times on the recurrence of AF by observing both the short-term and long-term efficacy and safety of catheter ablation and AADs for the treatment of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary investigators of eligible randomized controlled trials were invited to contribute standardized outcome data. Random effect summary estimates were calculated as standardized mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for continuous and binary outcomes. In this study, 9 randomized controlled trials (n = 1542 patients) were included. The rate of recurrence of AF with no limit on follow-up time, >12 months, >18 months, >24 months, >30 months, and approximately 36 months was compared. Furthermore, the gap between the RFA and AAD groups in the recurrence rate of AF was found to decrease inversely to follow-up time. When the follow-up time reached 24 months, the difference between RFA and AAD was relatively stable with an odds ratio of 0.45 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.62). Overall, RFA decreased adverse events in the remaining trials; however, AAD performed better in terms of safety and had fewer adverse events with RFA usually causing more serious complications. CONCLUSION: RFA is more advantageous in terms of recurrence rate of AF than drug therapy. In addition, the analysis suggests that this effect persists during long-term follow-up; however, these benefits appear to decrease with longer follow-up time. Finally, AAD performed better in terms of safety and had fewer adverse events.

Meta-analysis of the incidence of lead dislodgement with conventional and leadless pacemaker systems.

INTRODUCTION: Leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) implantation using a transcatheter was recently developed to avoid pocket- and lead-related complications. Although a LCP has an active fixation mechanism using tines or a helix, LCP and lead dislodgement issues remain a major safety concern for patients. This article reviews the literature to determine the incidence of lead and LCP dislodgement. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 18 studies which included 17,321 patients undergoing conventional single- or dual-chamber pacemaker implantation and three studies which included 2,116 patients undergoing LCP device implantation were reviewed. The incidence of lead dislodgement ranged from 1% to 2.69% in individual studies with a mean of 1.63%, weighted mean of 1.71%, and median of 1.60 %. There was a relatively higher lead dislodgement rate between atrial and ventricular electrodes (odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-6.70; P  =  0.6; I2   =  0%), and between magnetic resonance imaging conditional and conventional leads (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.30-5.99; P  =  0.16; I2   =  46%). The use of active fixation leads (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.66-1.70; P  =  0.29; I2   =  20%) showed no significant difference in dislodgement risk compared to passive fixation leads. The incidence of LCP device dislodgement was 0%, 0.13%, and 1% in three leadless pacemaker studies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rates of conventional pacemaker lead dislodgement vary in individual studies with an overall high incidence. Use of the currently available LCP systems appears to result in a lower rate of device dislodgement. This may reflect the effectiveness of this novel technology and the fixation design of LCP devices.