Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Various Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies for Small Coronary Artery Disease

It remains unclear which percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy is the most preferable in patients with small-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of various PCI strategies for patients with small-vessel CAD through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched multiple databases for RCTs investigating the efficacy of the following PCI strategies for small-vessel CAD (<3 mm in diameter): drug-coated balloons (DCB), early-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), bare-metal stents (BMS), cutting balloon angioplasty, and balloon angioplasty (BA). The primary outcome was the trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), mostly defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization. The secondary outcomes included each component of MACE and angiographic binary restenosis. We performed a sensitivity analysis for RCTs without BMS or first-generation DES. Our search identified 29 eligible RCTs, including 8,074 patients among the 8 PCI strategies. SES significantly reduced MACE compared with BA (hazard ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.54) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 55.9%), and the rankogram analysis showed that SES was the best. There were no significant differences between DCB and newer-generation DES in any clinical outcomes, which was consistent in the sensitivity analysis. BMS and BA were ranked as the worst 2 for most clinical outcomes. In conclusion, SES was ranked as the best for reducing MACE. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between DCB and newer-generation DES. BMS and BA were regarded as the worst strategies for small -vessel CAD.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2024;211:334-342)