|
| Researchers (year) (reference) | Group size (n) | Follow-up (month) | Endpoint | Outcome (DCB vs. DES) | Conclusion |
|
| Vos et al. 2014 [33] | DCB: 100 | 12 | MACE, TLR | 5 MACE, 2 death, 3 received TLR | DCB without stenting showed good one-year clinical outcomes |
| Ho et al. 2015 [34] | DCB: 89 | 1 | Compensatory stenting, death | 4% patients received compensatory stenting, 4 patients dead in 1 month | DCB-only is feasible |
| Gobić et al. 2017 [35] | DCB: 38/DES: 37 | 6 | MACE, LLL | MACE: 0.0% (0/38) VS. 5.4% (2/37),
LLL: −0.09 ± 0.09 mm VS. 0.10 ± 0.19 mm | DCB-only strategy was safe, feasible and effective |
| Zhang et al. 2020 [36] | DCB: 180/DES: 200 | 3 | MACE, coronary artery dissection | MACE: 3.3% (6/180) VS. 1.0% (2/200),
Coronary artery dissection: 8.3% (15/180) VS. 3.0% (6/200), | DCB-only had the same safety and efficacy as stents |
| Hao et al. 2021 [37] | DCB: 38/DES: 42 | 12 | MACE, LLL | MACE: 11% (4/38) vs. 12% (5/42)
LLL: −0.12 ± 0.46 mm vs 0.14 ± 0.37 mm, | DCB without stenting is safe and effective |
| Niehe et al. 2022 [38] | DCB: 56/DES: 53 | 24 | MACE | 5.4% (3/56) VS. 1.9% (1/53), | The DCB group had same 2-yearclinical outcomes to DES group |
| Duan et al. 2022 [39] | DCB: 84/DES: 129 | 12 | MACE | Before PMS: 14.29% (12/84) VS. 16.28% (21/129),
After PMS: 9.7% (6/62) vs. 24.2% (15/62), | DCB-only was a possible strategy for pPCI |
|
