CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial Canadian SCAD Cohort Study: Shedding Light on SCAD From a United Front SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019 Intravenous Statin Administration During Myocardial Infarction Compared With Oral Post-Infarct Administration Effects of clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor on endothelial function, inflammatory parameters, and platelet function in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery stenting: a randomized, blinded, parallel study High-sensitivity troponin in the evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes

Clinical Trial2020 Oct 19;S0140-6736(20)32173-5.

JOURNAL:Lancet. Article Link

Long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): 3-year follow-up of a randomised, non-inferiority trial

RV Jeger, A Farah, BASKET-SMALL 2 Investigators et al. Keywords: DCB vs. DES; small coronary artery disease

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - In the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DESs) regarding clinical outcome up to 12 months, but data beyond 1 year is sparse. We aimed to test the long-term efficacy and safety of DCBs regarding clinical endpoints in an all-comer population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

 

METHODS - In this prespecified long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients from 14 clinical sites in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria with de-novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned 1:1 to DCB or second-generation DES and followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events (ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation [TVR]), all-cause death, probable or definite stent thrombosis, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding type 35). Analyses were performed on the full analysis set according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for 1 month after DCB and 6 months after DES with stable symptoms, but 12 months with acute coronary syndromes. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01574534 and is ongoing.

 

FINDINGS - Between April 10, 2012, and Feb 1, 2017, of 883 patients assessed, 758 (86%) patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group (n=382) or the DES group (n=376). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 15% in both the DCB and DES groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·681·45; p=0·95). The two groups were also very similar concerning the single components of adverse cardiac events: cardiac death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 5% vs 4%, HR 1·29, 95% CI 0·632·66; p=0·49), non-fatal myocardial infarction (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 6%, HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·451·51; p=0·52), and TVR (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 9%, HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·581·56; p=0·83). Rates of all-cause death were very similar in DCB versus DES patients (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 8%, HR 1·05, 95% CI 0·621·77; p=0·87). Rates of probable or definite stent thrombosis (Kaplan-Meier estimate 1% vs 2%; HR 0·33, 95% CI 0·071·64; p=0·18) and major bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2% vs 4%, HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·171·13; p=0·088) were numerically lower in DCB versus DES, however without reaching significance.

 

INTERPRETATION - There is maintained efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease up to 3 years.

 

FUNDING - Swiss National Science Foundation, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical.