Bianca Nicole Cervania Tuazon

St. Luke’s Medical Center,
Philippines

Abstract Title: Effectiveness of drug-coated balloons vs Drug-eluting stents in st-elevation acute coronary syndrome : A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Biography:

Bianca Nicole Cervania-Tuazon, 34, is a dedicated healthcare professional. She earned her Nursing degree from the University of Santo Tomas and pursued Medicine at Far Eastern University. She then underwent residency training in Internal Medicine at Veterans Memorial Medical Center. Currently, a first-year Cardiology Fellow at St. Luke’s Medical Center in Quezon City, her passion and clinical experiences motivate her to provide exceptional care and continue growing and gaining insight into the practice of cardiology and cardiovascular medicine. She plans to pursue Interventional Cardiology as her sub-specialty and aims provide benchmarks in demonstrating optimal care that is high-quality and cost-effective.

Research Interest:

Drug-Coated Balloons (DCB) have emerged as a promising “stent-less” and “leave-nothing-behind” strategy in percutaneous coronary interventions, offering a potential alternative to Drug-Eluting Stents (DES). Despite their innovative approach, the relative efficacy of DCB compared to DES in patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) remains debated. Inconsistent findings from various studies highlight the need to evaluate which method is better and more effective in reducing the risks of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing the incidence of MACE between DCB and DES in STEMI patients. This meta-analysis exclusively incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of DCB versus DES in the specified patient population. A comprehensive systematic search was performed across principal databases. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using fixed or random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity across studies. Eight RCTs encompassing a total of 837 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence of MACE was 8.6% (n = 36/416) in the DCB cohort compared to 10.0% (n = 42/421) in the DES cohort. The overall pooled risk ratio indicated no statistically significant difference in MACE between DCB and DES (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.37, p = 0.64), with negligible heterogeneity detected among the studies (I² = 0%). Our meta-analysis, grounded exclusively in RCT data, reveals no significant difference between DCB and DES angioplasty regarding the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events, such as all-cause mortality, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. Nevertheless, the findings substantiate the role of DCB as a viable alternative to DES in STEMI patients, particularly in specific clinical scenarios. The comparable incidence of MACE affirms the efficacy of DCB, underscoring their distinctive 'stent-less PCI' and 'leave-nothing-behind' advantages. Further research is warranted to ascertain long-term clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in this cohort.