CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Drug Coated Balloon

Abstract

Recommended Article

Therapeutic efficacy of paclitaxel-coated balloon for de novo coronary lesions with diameters larger than 2.8 mm 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 for Small-Vessel Disease: The RESTORE SVD China Randomized Trial Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review

Original Research2018 Jul;30(7):256-261.

JOURNAL: Article Link

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

Sim HW, Ananthakrishna R, Loh JP et al. Keywords: drug-coated balloon; drug-eluting stent; target-lesion failure

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVE - To evaluate the 1-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with 2.0 mm drug-coated balloon (DCB) vs 2.0 mm drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in small-caliber vessel de novo coronary artery disease (CAD).


METHODS - All patients treated with 2.0 mm DCB or 2.0 mm DES for very small vessel de novo CAD from July 2014 to June 2016 were included in this study. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of target-lesion failure (TLF) and time to TLF, defined as a combination of cardiac mortality, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization (TLR).


RESULTS - A total of 87 patients (96 lesions) were implanted with 2.0 mm DCBs and 200 patients (223 lesions) were implanted with 2.0 mm DESs during the study period. Mean reference vessel diameter was similar between the DCB and DES groups (1.88 ± 0.38 mm vs 1.95 ± 0.21 mm, respectively; P=.11). The 1-year TLF rates were 7.0% in the DCB group and 8.2% in the DES group (P=.73). TLF was driven by TLR in both groups. Bailout stenting was performed in 7 patients (8 lesions) who received a DCB. Stent thrombosis was seen in 4 patients (2.0%) who underwent DES implantation. There was no vessel thrombosis noted in the DCB group. Cardiogenic shock was identified as a direct and significant predictor for both the occurrence of TLF and time to TLF.


CONCLUSIONS - In this first report, treatment of very small vessel CAD with 2.0 mm DCB vs 2.0 mm DES was associated with similar 1-year TLF rates.