Treatment of small coronary arteries with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter

Comparison of Drug-Eluting Balloon Followed by Bare Metal Stent with Drug-Eluting Stent for Treatment of de Novo Lesions: Randomized, Controlled, Single-Center Clinical Trial

The combined use of a drug-eluting balloon (DEB) and a bare metal stent (BMS) for the treatment of de novo non-small vessel coronary artery diseases (CAD) remains to be evaluated. We investigated the efficacy of a sequential treatment using a DEB together with a BMS implantation in comparison to a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). This study was a prospective, randomized, open-label study. We designed it to demonstrate the non-inferiority of a sequential treatment using a DEB first followed by a BMS (DEB + BMS) compared with the use of a ZES. The primary endpoint was in-segment late loss (LL) at 9 months measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). A total of 180 patients were enrolled in the study. The 9-month follow-up angiography was performed in 72 patients with DEB + BMS and 74 patients with ZES. When comparing the DEB + BMS results with the ZES ones, LL was 0.50 ± 0.46 mm in DEB + BMS patients vs. 0.21 ± 0.44 mm in ZES patients (P < 0.001). The mean difference of the LL was 0.31 mm, which was larger than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.19 mm, and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was 0.15-0.48. The clinical outcomes were not significantly different. In conclusion, the DEB + BMS strategy is inferior to the ZES one in terms of the LL result at 9 months. The DEB strategy for de novo coronary artery lesions needs to be improved for it to become an alternative treatment option.

Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Balloon for Ostial Side Branch Lesions (001-Bifurcations): Mid-Term Clinical and Angiographic Results

BACKGROUND

In the drug-eluting stent era, the best strategy to treat Medina 001 lesion remains unestablished. This is the first prospective registry assessing the efficacy and safety of the second-generation drug-coated balloon in patients with side-branch ostial lesion.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients with de novo Medina 001 lesion and associated myocardial ischemia were treated with second-generation drug-coated balloon-Dior balloon catheter (Eurocor GmbH, Bonn Germany), and prospectively included in this study. After mandatory pre-dilatation, a paclitaxel-eluting balloon was inflated for a minimum of 45 seconds. Left main bifurcation, severely calcified lesions and cardiogenic shock, were the only exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The inclusion period was 2.7 years. Mean age was 62 ± 12 years old, 41% diabetic, 65% presented with acute coronary syndrome. The most common vessel treated was the first diagonal (50%). Pre-dilatation with a cutting balloon was used in 59%. Angiographic success was 86% (in 14% a bare metal stent was implanted because of acute recoil [n = 5] or coronary dissection more than type B [n = 2]). At a mean of 12.2 ± 2.2 months, major cardiac adverse events rate was 14.3% (1 myocardial infarction, 0 cardiac deaths, 7 target lesion revascularization). There was no thrombosis or occlusion. At a mean of 7.2 ± 1.1 months, binary restenosis was 22.5% (n = 7) with a late loss of 0.32 ± 0.73 mm.

CONCLUSION

Medina 001 lesion is an infrequent type of coronary lesion. Drug-coated balloon-Dior is a safe and technically easy therapeutic option, associated with acceptable mid-term clinical outcomes. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:285-292).

Drug-coated balloon in combination with bare metal stent strategy for de novo coronary artery disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Studies examining the efficiency of drug-coated balloon (DCB) + bare metal stent (BMS) compared with stents alone for de novo lesions have reported inconsistent results. The present comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed and compared the clinical efficacy and safety of DCB + BMS with those of stents alone for de novo coronary artery disease.

METHODS

We formally searched electronic databases before September 2016 to identify potential studies. All RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they compared DCB + BMS with a control treatment (drug-eluting stent [DES] alone or BMS alone) in patients with de novo coronary artery disease.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs with a total of 2196 patients met the inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis indicated DCB plus BMS was associated with poorer outcomes when compared with DES alone in primary endpoint {(in-segment late lumen loss [LLL]: mean difference [MD], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-0.32; P = 0.0042) and (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACEs]: risk ratio [RR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.44-2.45; P < 0.0001)}. However, DCB + BMS had nonsignificantly lower LLL than BMS alone (in-segment LLL: MD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.33-0.04; P = 0.24), and was more advantageous in reducing MACE incidence, with borderline significance (MACEs: RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the present results do not favor the DCB + BMS strategy as an alternative therapeutic method to DES implantation for de novo coronary artery lesions in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Additional well-designed large RCTs with long-follow-up periods are required to clarify the inconsistent results.

Application of drug-coated balloon in coronary artery intervention: challenges and opportunities

In recent decades, the outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD) have markedly improved, which can be partly attributed to the use of novel drugs (especially statins and antiplatelet drugs) and partly to the evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). From percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty to bare-metal stent and then to drug-eluting stent, every step of PCI is attractive to interventional cardiologist, great progress has been made for patients with CHD. In the past few years, some successor devices for treating CHD have emerged. Undoubtedly, drug-coated balloon (DCB), which was recommended by 2014 ESC Guidelines on myocardial revascularization, is a “shining star” among them. DCB involves a semi-compliant angioplasty balloon coated with an anti-proliferative agent that can exert antirestenotic efficacy by permeating into the vessel wall during balloon contact. This review discusses the conception and merits, preclinical data, emerging clinical indications, and results from clinical trials of this novel interventional technology. Although DCB has shown authentic efficacy in the treatment of in-stent restenosis, its use in de novo coronary lesions is still in dispute. Hence, concerns and the future direction of DCB are also covered in this paper.

Safety of bailout stenting after paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty

BACKGROUND

Bailout stenting after suboptimal paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty is required in up to 28% of cases. We sought to compare the safety of bailout stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with the more established combination of PCB with bare metal stents (BMS).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated all patients who had stents implanted owing to suboptimal PCB angioplasty results between January 2010 and April 2015. Endpoints analyzed were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) - defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) - as well as major and minor bleeding.

RESULTS

Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable with a high proportion of diabetics in both groups (50.0% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.74). BMS and DES sizes were similar (mean diameter 2.72 ± 0.50 mm vs. 2.89 ± 0.56 mm, p = 0.20, length 25.22 ± 13.47 mm vs. 28.08 ± 9.08 mm, p = 0.47). Outcomes were comparable at the end of 1 year (MACE 12.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 1.00, TLR 6.1% vs. 4.8%, p = 1.00, MI 0% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.30). There was no case of stent thrombosis or major bleeding, and the rates of minor bleeding were similar (4.2% vs. 4.8%, p = 1.00).

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience using DES instead of BMS as a bailout after suboptimal PCB results shows that the procedure is safe and effective at 1 year.

Assessment of a Drug-Eluting Balloon for the Treatment of de novo Coronary Lesions Guided by Optical Coherence Tomography: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The drug-eluting balloon (DEB) is a promising tool to prevent restenosis after coronary angioplasty. However, data on the outcomes of DEB in de novo lesions are scarce. Vessel recoil and constrictive remodeling are the dominant causes of restenosis after angioplasty. The use of cutting balloons (CB) may effectively reduce elastic recoil after balloon dilation. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEB in treating de novo coronary artery lesions, using a predilation strategy with cutting balloon (CB) dilation before DEB angioplasty. Methods/Design: We present the design of a prospective, single-center, open-label, randomized, 2-arm clinical trial aiming to assess whether or not the strategy of CB dilation before DEB angioplasty reduces the primary end point of late lumen loss (LLL) compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation alone for de novo coronary artery lesions. A total of 120 patients will be randomly enrolled into the DEB or DES group (1:1 ratio). The primary end point is insegment LLL at 12 months as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Secondary end points include procedural success, such as angiographic success and device success, and clinical outcomes including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Discussion: The study will evaluate the clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes, and safety of DEB after CB dilation compared with DES for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions guided by OCT.

Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter versus paclitaxel-coated stent for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: the three-year results of the PEPCAD II ISR study

AIMS

Treatment of bare metal in-stent restenosis with the paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter based on the PACCOCATH® technology has yielded superior six-month angiographic and one-year clinical results compared to a paclitaxel-eluting stent. The three-year clinical follow-up is presented.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-one patients with coronary bare metal in-stent restenosis (>70%, length: <22 mm, vessel diameter: 2.5-3.5 mm) were randomly treated with the paclitaxel-coated balloon (DCB) (3 µg/mm²) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (DES). Clinical follow-up information was requested from the patients and from their physicians. Quantitative angiographic and demographic baseline data were statistically not different between the groups. Per intention-to-treat analysis at 12 months, the lesion-related rates of major adverse cardiac events were 7.6% and 16.9% (p=0.11) while at 36 months the respective numbers were 9.1% and 18.5% (p=0.14). These differences were primarily due to reduced target lesion revascularisation (TLR) in DCB 4/66 (6.2%) compared to DES patients 10/65 (15.4%) (p=0.10). From 12 to 36 months, 1/65 (1.5%) DCB patients experienced a myocardial infarction while neither TLR nor death occurred in any study patient in either group during that period.

CONCLUSIONS

The six-month superiority of the paclitaxel-coated balloon compared to the paclitaxel-eluting stent in the treatment of bare metal coronary in-stent restenosis persisted throughout the three-year clinical follow-up period indicating stability of the lesions treated. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00393315).

Angiographic, optical coherence tomography and histology findings from combination of a drug-coated balloon with an everolimus-eluting stent in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

We designed a porcine model to compare the angiographic, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and histological findings of implanting an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in the same segment of the coronary artery pre-treated with a drug-coating balloon (DCB; paccocath as carrier) with EES alone and DCB plus a bare metal stent (BMS).

METHODS

Seven female swine averaging 46.0±2.4kg were treated by random assignment as follows: DCB followed by EES; DCB followed by BMS; and EES alone. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and OCT were carried out post-implantation and repeated after 28±1days.

RESULTS

All arteries remained patent and demonstrated no sign of thrombus formation. There was no significant difference at 1month between the treatment groups in lumen loss (0.64±0.43, 0.44±0.43 and 0.33±0.28mm for EES, DCB/EES and DCB/BMS respectively, p=0.37) and binary restenosis (6.86 (2.91-9.12), 4.93 (-1.53-10.7) and 4.18 (3.27-10.2)% respectively, p=0.87). OCT found mean neointimal thickness of 0.15±0.09, 0.07±0.03 and 0.08±0.03mm (p=0.05) for EES, DCB/EES and DCB/BMS respectively. Endothelial strut coverage was 92.3±5.5, 85.4±8.6 and 89.1±8.9% (p=0.05) and mean neointimal area was 1.06±0.42, 0.95±0.24 and 1.20±0.28mm² (p=0.09) respectively. Inflammation score was similar between the three groups: 0.20 (0.20-0.28), 0.30 (0.22-0.48), 0.30 (0.20-0.38) for EES, DCB/EES and DCB/BMS respectively (p=0.14) and there were no differences in fibrin deposition.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of DCB with EES appeared to be safe and effective. Using EES to bail out suboptimal DCB therapy appeared to be safe and effective in this porcine model.

Drug-Eluting Balloons in the Treatment of Coronary De Novo Lesions: A Comprehensive Review

Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) have emerged as a new application in percutaneous coronary intervention. DEBs have proven successful in the treatment of in-stent restenosis, but their role in de novo lesions is less clear. This paper provides a review of the current studies where DEBs have been used in coronary de novo lesions, either as part of a DEB-only strategy or in combination with another device, mainly a bare metal stent (BMS). By searching Pubmed and Embase we were able to identify 52 relevant studies, differing in design, intervention, and clinical setting, including patients with small vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, complex long lesions, acute myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and elderly. In 23 studies, a DEB was combined with a BMS, 25 studies used a DEB-only strategy with only provisional BMS implantation, and four studies combined a DEB with a drug-eluting stent (DES). In the vast majority of studies, DEB in combination with BMS does not seem to improve clinical or angiographic outcome compared with DES, whereas a DEB-only strategy seems promising, especially when predilatation and geographical mismatch are taken into account. A lower risk of recurrent thrombosis with DEB compared with DES is not evident from the current studies. In conclusion, the main indication for DEB seems to be small vessel disease, especially in clinical scenarios in which a contraindication to dual antiplatelet therapy exists. The main approach should be a DEB-only strategy with only provisional bailout stenting, which has shown interesting results in different clinical scenarios. In general, larger randomized controlled studies with prolonged follow-up comparing DEB with best in class DES are warranted. Technical developments of DEBs including the use of different drugs might potentially improve the efficacy of such treatment.

Fractional flow reserve-guided coronary angioplasty using paclitaxel-coated balloons without stent implantation: feasibility, safety and 6-month results by angiography and optical coherence tomography

Background

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with drug-coated balloons (DCB) might be a promising trade-off between balloon angioplasty and drug-eluting stents, since DCB inhibit neointimal proliferation and limit duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. We investigated the safety, feasibility, and 6-month results of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided use of the paclitaxel-coated SeQuent Please^® balloon without stenting for elective PCI of de novo lesions.

Methods and results

In 46 patients (54 lesions) with stable symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD), a FFR-guided POBA (plain old balloon angioplasty) was performed. In case of a sufficient POBA result with residual stenosis < 40 %, FFR > 0.8 and no severe dissection, the target lesion was finally dilated using the DCB. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed before and after the index procedure and at 6-month follow-up (f/u) to calculate late lumen loss (LLL) and net luminal gain (NLG). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed at f/u to assess vascular remodeling. DCB-only treatment was applied to 43 patients (51 lesions), while 3 patients (3 lesions) needed provisional stenting. Invasive f/u was completed in 39 patients (47 lesions). At the stenotic site, the lumen diameter showed a trend toward progressive increase at f/u (LLL: −0.13 ± 0.44 mm, n.s.; NLG: 1.10 ± 0.53 mm, p < 0.001) without aneurysm formation or restenosis after DCB-only treatment.

Conclusions

FFR-guided DCB-only PCI of de novo lesions appeared feasible and safe in stable CAD with clopidogrel discontinuation after 4 weeks, showing a trend toward positive vessel remodeling without lumen loss at 6 months.

Clinical trial registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02120859

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00392-016-1019-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The use of paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) in acute coronary syndrome of small vessel de novo lesions: an analysis of a prospective 'real world' registry

Background

Paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty in small vessel de novo lesions has favourable outcome and appears to be an alternative to stent implantation. However there is limitted data on its use specifically in small vessel acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

We analyse patients data from the SeQuent Please Small Vessel ‘PCB only’ Registry. It was an international, prospective, multicentre registry which enrolled patients with de novo lesions of small vessel diameter (≥2.0, ≤2.75 mm). Patients were divided into the ACS group and the non-ACS group and comparison made between the two groups. The primary end-point was clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 9 months. Secondary end-points were acute technical success, 30-day and 9-month major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction or TLR) (MACE) and the occurence of definite lesion and vessel thrombosis.

Results

A total of 447 patients were enrolled for this registry of which 105 (23.5 %) patients were ACS (STEMI and NSTEMI). The procedural success rate was 98.1 % in ACS group. The mean vessel diameter for the ACS and non-ACS group were 2.15 ± 0.36 and 2.14 ± 0.35 respectively. Similar mean lesion length of around 15.5 mm was recorded in both groups. Additional stenting was required in 9.3 % ACS and 6.5 % non-ACS, p = 0.308. Reasons for additional stenting were target lesion related dissection (57.6 %) or non-target lesion stenosis (41.2 %). More than half of the patients had 4 weeks of aspirin/clopidogrel (57.1 % ACS, 60.5 % non-ACS). No significant difference between the ACS and non-ACS groups with regards to the duration and types of DAPT during follow up. At 30-day, MACE rate were (0 % ACS vs 0.3 % non-ACS, p = 0.599). At 9 months TLR rates were (1.2 % ACS vs 4.3 % non-ACS, p = 0.180) and MACE rates (3.6 % ACS vs 5.0 % non-ACS, p = 0.601).

Conclusion

PCB in ACS with small vessel de novo lesions has low 30-day and 9-month TLR/MACE rates comparable to non-ACS small vessels. Thus it appears to be an alternative to stent implantation in the treatment ACS.

An update on the clinical use of drug-coated balloons in percutaneous coronary interventions

INTRODUCTION

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) promise to deliver anti-proliferative drugs and prevent restenosis leaving nothing behind. Although, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated their efficacy for the treatment of in-stent restenosis, clinical evidence supporting their use in other coronary applications is still lacking.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the development status of clinically available DCB technologies and provides an update on the current data for their coronary use.

EXPERT OPINION

Current generation DCB prevent restenosis by delivering paclitaxel particles on the surface of the vessel wall. Although clinically available technologies share a common mechanism of action, important differences in pharmacokinetic behavior and safety profiles do exist. Future technological improvements include the development of coatings displaying: high transfer efficiency; low particle embolization potential; and alternative drug formulations. Optimized balloon-based delivery systems and drug encapsulation technologies also promise to improve the technical limitations of current generation DCB. Although proving clinical superiority against DES may prove to be difficult in mainstream applications (i.e., de novo), new generation DCB technologies have the potential to achieve a strong position in the interventional field in clinical settings in which the efficacy of DES use is not proven or justified (i.e., bifurcations).

Stenting and Adjunctive Delivery of Paclitaxel Via Balloon Coating Versus Durable Polymeric Matrix for De Novo Coronary Lesions: Clinical and Angiographic Results from the Prospective Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

There is limited comparative clinical data regarding the safety and efficacy profile of paclitaxel delivery via balloon versus stent-polymer matrix. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic results of two different methods of paclitaxel delivery among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for single de novo coronary lesions.

METHODS

A total of 202 patients undergoing PCI due to symptomatic heart disease and at least one significant coronary artery lesion were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter non-inferiority trial. Eligible patients were randomized to a revascularization with either a paclitaxel eluting stent (PES = Coroflex Please, B.Braun) or a bare metal stent (BMS) followed by a paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) dilation (BMS = Coroflex + PCB = Sequent Please, B.Braun). Clinical follow-up was obtained at 9 months in all patients, whereas angiographic in a subset of 94 (46.5%) patients.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. At 9 months, the primary endpoint of in-stent late lumen loss in BMS + PCB was comparable and non-inferior to PES (0.21 ± 0.5 vs. 0.30 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. P(non-inf)  < 0.05). At 9 months, the incidence of MACE (7.0 vs. 6.9%, HR = 1, 95%CI: 0.3-2.8; P = 0.99), comprising the occurrence of myocardial infarction (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.62, 95%CI: 0.4-6.5; P = 0.32), target lesion revascularization (6.9 vs. 5.0%, HR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.4-4.4; p = 0.54) and stent thrombosis (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 2.01, 95%CI: 0.5-7.4; P = 0.74) was comparable between BMS + PCB and PES, respectively. In the BMS + PCB group, thrombosis tended to occur within 30 days (3.9 vs. 1.0%; P = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Paclitaxel delivery via drug coated balloon or polymer-stent matrix achieved comparable angiographic and clinical results among patients with de novo coronary lesions. BMS + PCB revascularization was associated with a higher rate of stent thrombosis when compared to newer generation drug eluting stents, therefore, should be recommended as a bail-out for PCB alone angioplasty.

The Leipzig Prospective Drug-Eluting Balloon-Registry - Outcome of 484 Consecutive Patients Treated for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis and De Novo Lesions Using Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting balloons (DEB) are an alternative treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR), but data regarding outcomes of DEB in de novo lesions are lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We investigated the effect of DEB on target lesion revascularization (TLR), procedural complications (coronary dissection/rupture, pericardial effusion, stent thrombosis, peri-interventional NSTEMI, stroke), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, TLR, stroke) in patients with ISR and de novo lesions in an all-comers setting. Between April 2009 and October 2013, 484 consecutive patients (mean age 68.4 years; 77.9% male) were enrolled in a prospective registry. TLR rate was 4.9% at 12 months and 8.7% at long-term follow-up of 2.3 years. Subgroup analysis confirmed a TLR rate of 8.9% after DEB treatment of ISR in bare-metal stents (21/235 lesions), 13.0% in drug-eluting stents (21/161 lesions) and 0% for de novo lesions (0/76 lesions). At long-term follow-up, all-cause mortality/cardiac mortality was 8.7% (42/484)/3.3% (16/484) and MACCE rate was 18.4% (89/484 patients), with no differences between DEB for ISR compared with de novo lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

DEB for ISR resulted in a low rate of TLR. Our data support DEB in ISR as an effective treatment option. DEB in small coronary vessels in our limited cohort appeared to be safe. Larger, randomized trials in small coronary vessels should be undertaken to verify the long-term results of the current trial.

Coronary artery aneurysm following drug-coated balloon treatment

Drug-coated balloons are an effective treatment option for stent restenosis. Because of their potential benefits, the use of drug-coated balloons is predicted to increase in the future and expand further for the treatment of de novo lesions as well. We hereby present a case in which a patient developed a coronary artery aneurysm following the treatment of a de novo native coronary narrowing with a drug-coated balloon.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention by drug-eluting balloon angioplasty: the nonrandomized fourth arm of the DEB-AMI (drug-eluting balloon in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon (DEB) only strategy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), aiming at a comparison with bare metal stent (BMS) alone, DEB followed by BMS, and paclitaxel eluting stent (PES), as assessed in the randomized Drug Eluting Balloon in Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (DEB-AMI) trial.

BACKGROUND

DEB-only seems an attractive strategy in PPCI, as it obviates the risk of stent thrombosis.

METHODS

This study is a prospective registry with the same inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the DEB-AMI trial, as it constitutes the fourth, nonrandomized, treatment arm of this trial. Patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were allocated to DEB-only (DIOR II, Eurocor GmbH, Bonn, Germany) after successful thrombus aspiration and predilatation. Primary endpoint was 6-month angiographic in-balloon/stent late-luminal loss (LLL). Secondary endpoints were in-balloon/stent binary restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization).

RESULTS

Forty patients underwent PPCI by DEB-only. Procedural success was achieved in 97.5% with bail-out stenting required in 10.0% of procedures. In DEB-only, LLL was 0.51 ± 0.59 mm as compared to 0.74 ± 0.57 mm in BMS (P = 0.44), 0.64 ± 0.56 mm in DEB+BMS (P = 0.88) and 0.21 ± 0.32 mm in PES (P < 0.01); in-balloon/stent binary restenosis rates were 22.2%, 23.8% (P = 0.67), 28.6% (P = 0.97), and 4.5% (P = 0.07), respectively; and MACE rates were 17.5%, 23.5% (P = 0.20), 20.0% (P = 0.26), and 4.1% (P = 0.90), respectively. No acute or late thrombotic events occurred in the DEB-only group.

CONCLUSIONS

PPCI by DEB-only in selected patients yielded an angiographic outcome comparable to BMS alone and DEB followed by BMS. PES proved angiographic superiority to DEB-only. DEB-only is therefore a potential treatment alternative during PPCI in patients with contra-indications to drug-eluting stents.

Safety and feasibility of a PAclitaxel-eluting balloon angioplasty in Primary Percutaneous coronary intervention in Amsterdam (PAPPA): one-year clinical outcome of a pilot study

AIMS

In primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), stenting has been shown to reduce the need for repeat target lesion revascularisation (TLR) compared to balloon angioplasty alone, but did not result in a reduction of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) or cardiac death. Meanwhile, stent-related adverse events such as stent thrombosis continue to be of concern. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of drug- coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty without stenting in PPCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred patients presenting with ST-elevation MI were prospectively enrolled in this pilot study. They underwent PPCI with DCB angioplasty; additional stenting was allowed only in case of type C to F coronary dissection or residual stenosis >50%. All patients were treated with i.v. bivalirudin. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, recurrent MI and TLR. A total of 59 patients received treatment with DCB angioplasty alone, whereas additional stenting was required in 41 patients. One-year clinical follow-up was completed in 98 patients. A total of five major adverse cardiac events were reported (5%). Cardiac death was seen in two patients, while three patients underwent TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This first study of a DCB angioplasty-only strategy in the setting of PPCI showed good one-year clinical results.

The NICE recommendation for drug-coated balloons and its global impact

Objectives:

The clinical efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) has been demonstrated. The objective of this article is to provide comparative cost efficacy data for DCB angioplasty in various countries based on the original methodology of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP) at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2010.

Study design:

Published and unpublished Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were evaluated for comparison in selected countries. Furthermore, a systematic review of economic evaluations of DCB angioplasty versus standard treatments (uncoated balloon angioplasty or drug-eluting stent implantations) was conducted.

Methods:

National cost efficacy data were evaluated using Markov state transition models which were adapted to fit each country’s device and procedure related costs. The clinical input for adverse events was defined with two relevant trials for in-stent restenosis of bare metal stents (BMS-ISR) and of drug-eluting stents (DES-ISR).

Results:

In the UK, Germany, Switzerland, South Africa, Japan and Brazil, DCB angioplasty is cost-effective when compared with drug-eluting stents to treat either BMS-ISR or DES-ISR.

Conclusions:

DCB angioplasty ought to be the preferred treatment option for patients with BMS-ISR and DES-ISR from the payers’ point of view.

Local delivery of paclitaxel in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease

BACKGROUND

Despite advancements from balloon angioplasty to drug-eluting stents, primary patency rates after endovascular revascularization of peripheral artery disease have remained inferior compared to surgery. Endovascular revascularization has been limited by restenosis and mechanical stent failure. Thus, there is increased research into other nonstent-based local drug delivery modalities, which can provide an active drug to inhibit restenosis focally and avoid the risk of systemic adverse effects.

METHODS

This review will summarize the unique properties of paclitaxel and studies on paclitaxel local delivery for the treatment of peripheral artery disease. A MEDLINE search for relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature published in English was conducted. Search terms included but were not limited to paclitaxel pharmacodynamics, paclitaxel local drug delivery, and drug eluting balloons, with a focus on the use of paclitaxel in the context of coronary and peripheral vascular disease.

RESULTS

The primary search produced 182 results of which 51 papers were relevant. Of the 51 relevant papers, 27 were original research papers and 24 were either review papers, commentary or opinion papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Paclitaxel has several chemical properties, which make it ideal for local drug delivery including its hydrophobicity, ability to concentrate into the arterial intima layer and prolonged effect on cells even after brief exposure periods. Local delivery of paclitaxel via injection catheters, balloon catheters and coated balloons has shown encouraging results in terms of efficacy and safety in small-scale animal and clinical studies. Additional preclinical and clinical studies are needed to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of these treatments in humans.

The current status of drug-coated balloons in percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions

Through continued innovation, percutaneous treatment of coronary and peripheral stenoses has evolved rapidly since balloon angioplasty was first introduced three decades ago. Significant advances were made with the introduction of bare metal stents and subsequently drug-eluting stents, which expanded the possibility of successful revascularisation in complicated lesions. Despite these advantages, efforts are still ongoing to improve patient outcomes further. In recent years, drug-coated balloons have emerged as an exciting technology developed to overcome the limitations faced by drug-eluting stents, such as stent thrombosis and dependency on prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, and may prove efficacious in complex subsets such as small vessels and diffuse lesions where stent results are suboptimal. Several drug-coated balloons developed for coronary and peripheral applications were evaluated recently in preclinical and clinical studies with encouraging results. Drug-coated balloons have proven effective in treating in-stent restenosis; however, there is accumulating evidence on their utility in other clinical scenarios. We present a timely review of the mechanisms of action, key preclinical studies, emerging clinical indications, current clinical trial results, and future perspectives of this novel drug-coated balloon technology as it seeks to establish its role in percutaneous intervention.

Macromolecular approaches to prevent thrombosis and intimal hyperplasia following percutaneous coronary intervention

Cardiovascular disease remains one of the largest contributors to death worldwide. Improvements in cardiovascular technology leading to the current generation of drug-eluting stents, bioresorbable stents, and drug-eluting balloons, coupled with advances in antirestenotic therapeutics developed by pharmaceutical community, have had a profound impact on quality of life and longevity. However, these procedures and devices contribute to both short- and long-term complications. Thus, room for improvement and development of new, alternative strategies exists. Two major approaches have been investigated to improve outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention including perivascular delivery and luminal paving. For both approaches, polymers play a major role as controlled research vehicles, carriers for cells, and antithrombotic coatings. With improvements in catheter delivery devices and increases in our understanding of the biology of healthy and diseased vessels, the time is ripe for development of novel macromolecular coatings that can protect the vessel lumen following balloon angioplasty and promote healthy vascular healing.

Drug-eluting balloons in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

We compared efficacy of bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting balloon (DEB) combination vs BMS alone, in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina (UA) were randomized to BMS only or BMS+DEB group. Angiographic follow-up was performed after 6 months. The primary endpoints were binary in-stent restenosis (ISR) and late lumen loss (LLL) and the secondary endpoints were target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), and new acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients were enrolled, 44 (BMS) and 41 (BMS+DEB). The median age was 67 (36-84) years and 68 (80%) were male. Fifty-two patients (61.2%) had NSTEMI and 33 patients (38.8%) UA. There was no difference in patient demographics, risk factors, and clinical characteristics, except for more smokers in the BMS+DEB group 18/41 (43.9%) vs 9/44 (20.5%). At follow-up, no significant difference in binary ISR was found; p=0.593, but LLL was significantly lower in the BMS+DEB group 0.68 (0.00-2.15) mm vs 0.22 (0.00-2.35) mm; p=0.002. The difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate combining TLR, ST, and ACS, between the groups was also non-significant, 29.5% (BMS) vs 24.4% (BMS+DEB); p=0.835. One patient had a subacute ST (BMS+DEB) due to clopidogrel resistance.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with BMS+DEB combination for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome had significantly less LLL in comparison to patients treated with BMS alone but without an impact on patient clinical outcomes.

Treatment of coronary de novo bifurcation lesions with DCB only strategy

OBJECTIVES

This observational study investigated the value of drug-coated balloons (DCB) only strategy in bifurcation lesions in a consecutive series of all comer percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

Local application of paclitaxcel by DCB has clinical benefits in various settings including coronary bifurcations. While so far most bifurcation studies investigated sequential application of DCBs to the main (MB) and side branch (SB) with stenting of the MB, we report first results after DCB intervention without additional stenting of the MB or SB.

METHODS

We performed 39 consecutive DCB only interventions in de novo bifurcation lesions with SB ≥ 2 mm and scheduled follow-up angiography after 4 months. Patients refusing angiography had telephone follow-up.

RESULTS

Follow-up angiograms were obtained in 30 out of 39 DCB only interventions. 33.3 % were located in the left main (LM) bifurcation, 28.2 % in left anterior descending (LAD), 20.5 % in left circumflex (LCX) and 17.9 % in the right coronary artery. Four months after index procedure no patient had died, experienced myocardial infarction or stroke. Follow-up angiograms showed restenosis in 3 out of 30 interventions (10 %), 2 developing in the distal main (6.7 %) and 1 in the SB (3.3 %). All three patients had been treated for LM/LAD/LCX bifurcations and suffered from most severe coronary artery disease, but had not been eligible for CABG for various reasons. Target lesion revascularization was performed in 3 out of 39 patients consistent with a MACE rate of 7.7 %.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of de novo bifurcation lesions with DCB only intervention without additional stenting is a safe therapy with low rates of restenosis and TLR.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of SeQuent Please Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon in a Real-World Single-Center Registry of South-East Asian Patients

BACKGROUND

Drug eluting balloon (DEB) is a new therapeutic option for treatment of obstructive coronary lesions in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is limited data on the safety and efficacy of DEB in Asian patients in contemporary clinical registries. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of SeQuent Please paclitaxel-eluting balloon in our cohort of South-East Asian patients in real world clinical practice.

METHODS

Between January 2010 to November 2012, 320 patients (76% male, mean age 61.3 ± 11.2 years) with a total of 337 coronary lesions were treated with SeQuent Please drug-eluting balloon (DEB). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) ie a composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel related myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 9 months follow-up.

RESULTS

The majority of patients presented with acute coronary syndrome (76%).The most common indication for the use of DEB was small vessel disease (54%) followed by instent restenosis (21%), bifurcation lesions (6%) and others (19%). An average of 1.23 ± 0.5 DEB were used per patient, with mean DEB diameter of 2.6 ± 0.6 mm and average total length of 24.0 ± 11.1 mm.At 9 months follow-up, 5.3% of patients developed MACE. MACE was mainly driven by TLR(4%) followed by target vessel related myocardial infarction (2.6%) and cardiovascular death (1%).

CONCLUSION

SeQuent Please DEB was a safe and effective treatment modality in our cohort of South-East Asian patients with a low incidence of MACE observed at 9 months follow-up.

No indication for an unexpected high rate of coronary artery aneurysms after angioplasty with drug-coated balloons

AIMS

Coronary artery aneurysms (CAA) are a rare complication after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are reported with an incidence of 0.6% to 3.9%. While in recent years the use of paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCB) has increased, so far no CAA formation after DCB intervention has been reported.

METHODS AND RESULTS

During the years 2010 and 2011 we used DCBs in 704 PCIs. Follow-up angiography was scheduled at four months in all patients and has so far been achieved in 380 PCIs. In three patients we found development of a CAA at the former PCI site within four months of observation. Aneurysm length varied between 8.4 mm and 13 mm and lumina increased 58% to 131%. Retrospectively all patients with CAA development showed small intimal dissection partially with tiny persisting contrast bands parallel to the lumen according to type B and type C of the NHLBI classification after PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

CAA formation after DCB intervention was found in three out of 380 PCIs with DCB, consistent with an incidence of 0.8%. Thus, PCI with DCB does not cause an unexpectedly high rate of coronary artery aneurysms.

Drug-coated balloon treatment of coronary artery disease: a position paper of the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology

Drug-coated balloons are a new tool for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. The main feature of this technology is a rapid and homogenous transfer of an antiproliferative drug (paclitaxel) to the vessel wall just at the time of balloon inflation, when neointimal proliferation, in response to angioplasty, is the highest. Moreover, drug-coated balloons share adjuntive advantages over stents: the absence of permanent scaffold and polymer, the respect of the original coronary anatomy, and limited inflammatory stimuli, thereby allowing for short-term dual antiplatelet therapy. To this day, a lot of devices are available in the market, with limited scientific data for the vast majority of them. Thus, the Italian scientific society of interventional cardiologists GISE decided to coordinate the efforts of a group of reknown experts on the field, in order to obtain a Position Paper on the correct use of drug-coated balloons in all the settings of coronary artery disease, giving a class of indication to each one, based on the clinical evidence. This Position Paper represents a quick reference for operators, investigators, and manufactures to promote the understanding and the correct use of the drug-coated balloon technology in everyday clinical practice.

The paclitaxel-eluting PTCA-balloon in combination with a cobalt-chromium stent in two different sequences to treat de novo coronary artery lesions: an angiographic follow up study

INTRODUCTION

The paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter (DCB) based on the PACCOCATH(®) technology has yielded angiographic and clinical results superior to drug-eluting stents (DES) in situations like in-stent restenosis (ISR) and a trend towards superior results in small coronary vessels and side branches of coronary bifurcations. Using the DCB followed by cobalt-chromium stent (CoCr) deployment or with a reverse sequence may yield different outcomes in terms of late loss.

METHODS

97 patients with de-novo coronary stenosis (55.6 ± 10.7 years, 79.4% male, ≥70%, length: ≤25 mm, vessel diameter: 2.5-4.0 mm) were randomly treated with the DCB (3 μg/mm²) followed by a CoCr-stent or stent first and DCB later. Six-month angiographic and one-year clinical follow-up intention-to-treat analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Angiographic and demographic baseline data was comparable between the two groups. When comparing balloon first versus stent first technique, the primary outcome variables were not statistically different for mean in-segment (0.51 ± 0.56 mm vs. 0.36 ± 0.55 mm, p = 0.23) and in-stent (0.52 ± 0.55 mm vs. 0.46 ± 0.52 mm, p = 0.65) late lumen loss. The lesion related 12-month MACE rates were 5/49 (10.2%) and 2/48 (4.2%) (p = 0.44). Lesion related thrombotic events occurred in three patients in balloon first and in one patient in stent first group, two of which were associated with early discontinuation of continuous dual anti-platelet therapy, two with suboptimal PCI, and one each were performed in a thrombotic lesion and a bifurcation type 1.1.0.

CONCLUSION

Drug-coated balloon first followed by cobalt chromium stent deployment versus a reverse sequence is not associated with statistically significantly different 6-month angiographic or 12-month clinical outcomes.