CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Scientific Library

Abstract

Recommended Article

Long-term clinical outcomes after treatment of stent restenosis with two drug-coated balloons Sex Differences in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Pathophysiology: A Detailed Invasive Hemodynamic and Echocardiographic Analysis Coronary plaque redistribution after stent implantation is determined by lipid composition: A NIRS-IVUS analysis Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion—The Michigan Experience: Insights From the BMC2 Registry Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines The spectrum of chronic coronary syndromes: genetics, imaging, and management after PCI and CABG Gut microbiota dysbiosis promotes age-related atrial fibrillation by lipopolysaccharide and glucose-induced activation of NLRP3-inflammasome

Original Research2018 Sep 28.[Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Coron Artery Dis. Article Link

Long-term clinical outcomes after treatment of stent restenosis with two drug-coated balloons

Schröder J, Vogt F, Burgmaier M et al. Keywords: two drug-coated balloons; Long-term clinical outcomes; major adverse cardiac event; in-stent restenosis; Paclitaxel-coated balloon;

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still a clinical challenge in interventional cardiology. Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) are an attractive therapeutic option for ISR. There are several different types of PCBs available for percutaneous coronary intervention, but to date, comparative data between different types of PCBs for the treatment of ISR are scarce.


PATIENTS AND METHODS - This single centre, nonrandomized, retrospective study under real-world condition included 194 patients with 194 ISR treated by repeat percutaneous coronary intervention with PCBs. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction and need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1 year. Secondary end points were MACE and TLR at long-term follow-up.


RESULTS - Baseline clinical and angiographic parameters were comparable between the two groups. Patients in the iopromide-based PCB and butyryl-tri-hexyl citrate (BTHC)-PCB groups were followed up for 32.2±20.5 and 24.2±13.3 months, respectively (P=0.001). MACEs at 1-year follow-up were 15.0 and 15.8% (P=0.879) for the BTHC-PCB and iopromide-based PCB groups, respectively. TLR, myocardial infarction and cardiac death for BTHC-PCB versus iopromide-based PCB at 1-year follow-up were 9.6 versus 11.8%, P=0.622; 5.3 versus 3.9%, P=0.640; and 5.3 versus 3.9%, P=0.640, respectively. If complete follow-up periods were included in the analysis, BTHC-PCB and iopromide-based PCB had comparable rates of MACE (P=0.835) and TLR (P=0.792).


CONCLUSION - BTHC-PCB and iopromide-based PCB had comparable rates of MACE and TLR for the treatment of ISR at 1-year and long-term follow-up.