CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Drug Coated Balloon

Abstract

Recommended Article

Sustainable Antirestenosis Effect With a Low-Dose Drug-Coated Balloon: The ILLUMENATE European Randomized Clinical Trial 2-Year Results Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessel Disease: PICCOLETO II Randomized Clinical Trial Prospective, large-scale multicenter trial for the use of drug-coated balloons in coronary lesions: The DCB-only All-Comers Registry Drug-Coated Balloon for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Drug-coated balloon for treatment of de-novo coronary artery lesions in patients with high bleeding risk (DEBUT): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial Percutaneous Treatment and Outcomes of Small Coronary Vessels: A SCAAR Report Impact of Optimized Procedure-Related Factors in Drug-Eluting Balloon Angioplasty for Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis Survival After Coronary Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons
|<< 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