CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Drug Coated Balloon

Abstract

Recommended Article

Optical Coherence Tomography Predictors for Recurrent Restenosis After Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis Therapeutic Options for In-Stent Restenosis Clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary dissection after paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty for small vessel coronary artery disease Treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis: systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of 24 randomised trials and 4880 patients Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis: A randomized RESTORE trial Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Feasibility Study Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Small-Vessel Disease: The RESTORE SVD China Randomized Trial Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The REVELATION Randomized Trial
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>|

Original Research2018 Mar;197:35-42.

JOURNAL：Am Heart J. Article Link

Comparison of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis: A randomized RESTORE trial

Wong YTA, Kang DY, Park DW et al. Keywords: drug-eluting coronary stent restenosis; drug-coated balloon

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - This study sought to evaluate the optimal treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DESs).


METHODS - This is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized study comparing the use of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of DES ISR. The primary end point was in-segment late loss at 9-month routine angiographic follow-up.

RESULTS - A total of 172 patients were enrolled, and 74 (43.0%) patients underwent the angiographic follow-up. The primary end point was not different between the 2 treatment groups (DEB group 0.15±0.49 mm vs DES group 0.19±0.41 mm, P=.54). The secondary end points of in-segment minimal luminal diameter (MLD) (1.80±0.69 mm vs 2.09±0.46 mm, P=.03), in-stent MLD (1.90±0.71 mm vs 2.29±0.48 mm, P=.005), in-segment percent diameter stenosis (34%±21% vs 26%±15%, P=.05), and in-stent percent diameter stenosis (33%±21% vs 21%±15%, P=.002) were more favorable in the DES group. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year was comparable between the 2 groups (DEB group 7.0% vs DES group 4.7%, P=.51).

CONCLUSIONS - Treatment of DES ISR using DEB or second-generation DES did not differ in terms of late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up, whereas DES showed better angiographic results regarding minimal MLD and percent diameter stenosis. Both treatment strategies were safe and effective up to 1 year after the procedure.

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top