The Efficacy And Safety Of The Meta-analysis The Cutting Balloon And Ordinary Balloon Treatment Of Coronary In-stent Restenosis

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Meta-analysis the cutting balloon angioplasty (CBA) and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis.Methods:Control test database computer retrieval to2013June Cochrane Library (CCTR), Clinical Pubmed, Embase, Wanfang Database, China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), VIP Database (VIP), collection of cutting balloon and ordinary balloon in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis effectiveness and safety the randomized controlled trial (RCT), a total of7RCTs,960patients, including CBA group493cases, POBA in the treatment of467cases of the control group, using RevMan5.0analysis software for Meta.Results: In the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis, balloon and ordinary balloon cutting comparison, CBA group of immediate elastic recoil below POBA group, there was statistical significance between the two(MD:-0.52,95%CI:-0.76～0.29,P<0.0001); the elastic shrinkage rate was lower in CBA group than in POBA group, there were statistical significance in the two groups room(MD:-13.83,95%CI:-16.17～11.49,P<0.00001); CBA group than after balloon dilatation of coronary artery diameter stenosis in POBA group, there is statistical significance between the two groups(MD:-12.99,95%CI:-18.09～-7.88, P<0.00001); late loss of vessel diameter in CBA group than that in POBA group, the two groups had statistical significance(MD:-13.83,95%CI:-0.50～-0.28, P<0.00001); after six months a follow-up of in-stent restenosis rate in POBA group was significantly higher than that in CBA group, there was statistical significance between the two(MD:0.44,95%CI:0.44,10.24,0.80, P<0.00001). Conclusion:CBA in treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis is safe and effective.