CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

药物涂层球囊

Abstract

Recommended Article

Bare metal or drug-eluting stent versus drug-coated balloon in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the randomised PEPCAD NSTEMI trial Treatment of Very Small De Novo Coronary Artery Disease With 2.0 mm Drug-Coated Balloons Showed 1-Year Clinical Outcome Comparable With 2.0 mm Drug-Eluting Stents Therapeutic efficacy of paclitaxel-coated balloon for de novo coronary lesions with diameters larger than 2.8 mm Drug-Coated Balloons for Coronary Artery Disease: Third Report of the International DCB Consensus Group A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial Long-term clinical outcomes after treatment of stent restenosis with two drug-coated balloons Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review Drug-Coated Balloons: A Safe and Effective Alternative to Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease

Clinical Trial2020;15:1527-1533.

JOURNAL:Eurointervention. Article Link

Bare metal or drug-eluting stent versus drug-coated balloon in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the randomised PEPCAD NSTEMI trial

B Scheller, MA Ohlow, S Ewen et al. Keywords: coronary de novo lesion; BMS; DES; DCB; non-inferiority

ABSTRACT

AIMS - Drug-coated balloons (DCB) may avoid stent-associated long-term complications. This trial compared the clinical outcomes of patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) treated with either DCB or stents.

 

METHODS AND RESULTS - A total of 210 patients with NSTEMI were enrolled in a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority multicentre trial comparing a paclitaxel iopromide-coated DCB with primary stent treatment. The main inclusion criterion was an identifiable culprit lesion without angiographic evidence of large thrombus. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF; combined clinical endpoint consisting of cardiac or unknown death, reinfarction, and target lesion revascularisation) after nine months. Secondary endpoints included total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and individual clinical endpoints. Mean age was 67±12 years, 67% were male, 62% had multivessel disease, and 31% were diabetics. One hundred and four patients were randomised to DCB, 106 to stent treatment. In the stent group, 56% of patients were treated with BMS, 44% with current-generation DES. In the DCB group, 85% of patients were treated with DCB only whereas 15% underwent additional stent implantation. During a follow-up of 9.2±0.7 months, DCB treatment was non-inferior to stent treatment with a TLF rate of 3.8% versus 6.6% (intention-to-treat, p=0.53). There was no significant difference between BMS and current-generation DES. The total MACE rate was 6.7% for DCB versus 14.2% for stent treatment (p=0.11), and 5.9% versus 14.4% in the per protocol analysis (p=0.056), respectively.

 

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with NSTEMI, treatment of coronary de novo lesions with DCB was non-inferior to stenting with BMS or DES. These data warrant further investigation of DCB in this setting, in larger trials with DES as comparator (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489449).