药物涂层球囊与普通球囊治疗股腘动脉闭塞性疾病:Meta分析

目的采用Meta分析对比药物涂层球囊(DCB)与普通球囊成形术(POBA)治疗股腘动脉闭塞性疾病效果差异。方法检索中国知网、Pubmed、EMBASE、the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials和ISI Web of Knowledge数据库自建库至今DCB与POBA治疗股腘动脉闭塞性疾病的随机对照研究。以R软件对结局指标进行Meta分析,包括晚期管腔丢失(LLL)、再狭窄、靶病变血运重建(TLR)、截肢和死亡。结果共入选18篇文献,DCB组1400例,POBA组1002例;组间LLLMD=-0.98,95%CI(-1.11,-0.86),P<0.001]、再狭窄RR=0.33,95%CI(0.27,0.42),P<0.001]和TLRRR=0.44,95%CI(0.36,0.55),P<0.001]差异均有统计学意义,截肢RR=0.57,95%CI(0.30,1.09),P=0.091]和死亡RR=0.70,95%CI(0.39,1.23),P=0.210]差异无统计学意义。结论DCB用于治疗股腘动脉闭塞性疾病整体效果优于POBA。

Drug-coated balloon and plain old balloon angioplasty in treatment of femoral popliteal artery occlusive diseases: Meta-analysis

Objective To compare the difference of drug-coated balloon (DCB) and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in treatment of femoral popliteal artery occlusive diseases with meta analysis. Methods Published literature of CNKI, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ISI Web of knowledge databases for randomized controlled trials of DCB and POBA in treatment of femoral popliteal artery occlusive disease were searched from the establishment to now. Meta analysis was performed with R software. The main outcome measures included late lumen loss (LLL), restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), amputation and death. Results Totally 18 articles were enrolled, including 1 400 cases in DCB group and 1 002 cases in POBA group. There were significant differences of LLL (MD=-0.98, 95%CI-1.11, -0.86], P<0.001), restenosis (RR=0.33, 95%CI0.27, 0.42], P<0.001) and TLR (RR=0.44, 95%CI0.36, 0.55], P<0.001) between DCB group and POBA group, while no difference of amputation (RR=0.57, 95%CI0.30, 1.09], P=0.091) nor death (RR=0.70, 95%CI0.39, 1.23], P=0.210) was found between groups. Conclusion DCB was better than POBA in treatment of femoral popliteal artery occlusive diseases.