METHODS: We studied the systematic use of SBA with a low profile, non-slip element device prior to DCB angioplasty in an unselected, non-randomized patient population. This prospective, all-comers study enrolled patients with de novo lesions as well as in-stent restenotic lesions in bare metal stents (BMS-ISR) and drug-eluting stents (DES-ISR). The primary endpoint was the target lesion failure (TLF) rate at 9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02554292).
RESULTS: A total of 481 patients (496 lesions) were recruited to treat de novo lesions (78.4%, 377), BMS-ISR (4.0%, 19), and DES-ISR (17.6%, 85). Overall risk factors were acute coronary syndrome (ACS, 20.6%, 99), diabetes mellitus (46.8%, 225), and atrial fibrillation (8.5%, 41). Average lesion lengths were 16.7 ± 10.4 mm in the de novo group, and 20.1 ± 8.9 mm (BMS-ISR) and 16.2 ± 9.8 mm (DES-ISR) in the ISR groups. Scoring balloon diameters were 2.43 ± 0.41 mm (de novo), 2.71 ± 0.31 mm (BMS-ISR), and 2.92 ± 0.42 mm (DES-ISR) whereas DCB diameters were 2.60 ± 0.39 mm (de novo), 3.00 ± 0.35 mm (BMS-ISR), and 3.10 ± 0.43 mm (DES-ISR), respectively. The overall accumulated TLF rate of 3.0% (14/463) was driven by significantly higher target lesion revascularization rates in the BMS-ISR (5.3%, 1/19) and the DES-ISR group (6.0%, 5/84). In de novo lesions, the TLF rate was 1.1% (4/360) without differences between calcified and non-calcified lesions (p = 0.158) and small vs. large reference vessel diameters with a cutoff value of 3.0 mm (p = 0.901).
CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a non-slip element scoring balloon catheter to prepare lesions suitable for drug-coated balloon angioplasty is associated with high procedural success rates and low TLF rates in de novo lesions.
BACKGROUND: Data regarding the performance of a DCB-only approach, especially in patients with previously untreated de-novo coronary artery disease (CAD), are still limited.
METHODS: This study was conducted as an international, multicenter registry primarily enrolling patients with de-novo CAD. However, it was also possible to include patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) after 9 months.
RESULTS: A total of 1,025 patients with a mean age of 64.0 ± 11.2 years were enrolled. The majority of treated lesions were de-novo (66.9%), followed by drug-eluting-stent ISR (DES-ISR; 22.6%) and bare-metal-stent ISR (BMS-ISR; 10.5%). The TLR rate was lower in the de-novo group (2.3%) when compared to BMS- (2.9%) and DES-ISR (5.8%) (P = 0.049). Regarding MACE, there was a trend toward fewer events in the de-novo group (5.6%) than in the BMS- (7.8%) and DES-ISR cohort (9.6%) (P = 0.131). Subgroup analyses revealed that lesion type (95% CI 1.127-6.587); P = 0.026) and additional stent implantation (95% CI 0.054-0.464; P = 0.001) were associated with higher TLR rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that DCB-only angioplasty of de-novo coronary lesions is associated with low MACE and TLR rates. Thus, DCBs appear to be an attractive alternative for the interventional, stentless treatment of suitable de-novo coronary lesions.
METHODS: The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR).
RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups.
CONCLUSION: In this largest ever patient-level pooled comparison on the treatment of diabetic patients with BRS out to two years, individuals with diabetes treated with the Absorb BVS had a similar rate of MACE as compared with diabetics treated with the Xience EES. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. PCBs are an established treatment option outside the United States with a Class I, Level of Evidence: A recommendation in the European guidelines. However, their efficacy is better in bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.
METHODS: Fifty patients with DES ISR were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm2) with a clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please Neo, 3 μg/mm2) in coronary DES ISR. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events, and individual clinical endpoints such as stent thrombosis, cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.
RESULTS: Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.21 ± 0.54 mm in the PCB group versus 0.17 ± 0.55 mm in the SCB group (p = NS; per-protocol analysis). Clinical events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This first-in-man comparison of a novel SCB with a crystalline coating shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus [Rapamycin] Coated Balloon or a Paclitaxel Coated Balloon [FIM LIMUS DCB]; NCT02996318).