Comparison between drug-coated balloon angioplasty and second-generation drug-eluting stent placement for the treatment of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation

Comparison of clinical outcomes between percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions versus in-stent restenosis lesions

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the primary concern after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is considered to be associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, comparative data on ISR and de novo lesions are rare. Therefore, we aimed to compare PCI-related clinical outcomes between patients with de novo lesions and those with ISR lesions. We undertook a retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone a PCI between 2013 and 2020. The incidences of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and all-cause death over a 2-year follow-up period were evaluated. In total, 1538 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: a de novo lesions group (n = 1258, 81.8%) and an ISR lesions group (n = 280, 18.2%). Patients in the ISR lesions group were significantly older, with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease than those in the de novo lesions group. Kaplan-Meier curves showed no significant between-group differences in the incidence of MACCE (log-rank, p = 0.93) and all-cause death (p = 0.09). After adjustment for other covariates, PCIs for ISR lesions were not found to be significantly associated with MACCE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% confidential interval [CI] 0.49-2.49; p = 0.81) and all-cause death (HR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.26-1.31; p = 0.19). PCIs for ISR lesions were not associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with PCIs for de novo lesions.

Differences in clinical outcomes between pre- and post-marketing clinical study following paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis: from the Japanese regulatory viewpoint

In 2013, a drug-coated balloon catheter (DCB) (SeQuent Please) for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) was approved in Japan. The pre-marketing Japan domestic NP001 study demonstrated better outcomes of the DCB (n = 138) compared to plain balloon angioplasty (n = 72). After the introduction to marketing, a post-marketing surveillance (PMS) (n = 396) was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the DCB in Japanese routine clinical practice. The aim of this paper was to assess differences between the pre-marketing NP001 study and the PMS. Compared to the NP001 study, more complex lesions were treated in the PMS (type B2/C: 69.0% vs 20.4%, total occlusion: 11.2% vs 0%, p < 0.001, respectively) and target lesion was more frequently ISR related to drug-eluting stent (DES) (79.5% vs 39.4%, p < 0.001). Regarding clinical outcomes, the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was higher in the PMS than in the NP001 study (TLR: 12.9% at 7 months and 17.6% at 12 months vs 2.8% at 6 months, p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that DES-ISR was a risk factor of TLR after DCB treatment for ISR (odds ratio: 5.77, 95% CI 1.75-18.95, p = 0.004). Among representative published trials using DCB for ISR, clinical outcomes are often worse in DES-ISR trials than those in bare metal stent-ISR trials. The rates of TLR in previous DES-ISR trials are similar to that in the current PMS (TLR at 12 months: 22.1% for ISAR-DESIRE 3, 15.3% for PEPCAD-DES, and 13.0% for RIBS IV). The effectiveness and safety of DCB for coronary ISR have been confirmed in the Japanese real-world survey. PMS would be useful to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical products throughout their total life cycles.

Value of S100A12 in predicting in-stent restenosis in patients with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation

In-stent restenosis (ISR) after drug-eluting stent (DES) placement has recently emerged as a major concern for cardiologists. Identification of biomarkers to predict ISR may be invaluable for tailored management strategies. The present study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of circulating S100 calcium-binding protein A12 (S100A12) for ISR. Out of 2,443 patients with DES-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and follow-up angiography at ~1 year after DES-based PCI, 258 patients were diagnosed with ISR and 258 patients without ISR were randomly selected as controls. Serum S100A12 levels were determined in the two subsets on admission. The association between ISR and the circulating levels of S100A12 was determined by constructing two multivariate stepwise logistic regression models. In addition, S100A12 was assessed for its ability to predict ISR using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The serum levels of S100A12 at baseline were significantly elevated in patients in the ISR group compared with those in the non-ISR group (P<0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, after adjusting for conventional cardiovascular risk factors, laboratory parameters and medication after the procedure, the S100A12 level was revealed to be independently associated with ISR. When a cut-off for serum S100A12 levels of 34.75 ng/ml was used, the ROC curve was able to predict ISR with 72.8% sensitivity and 79.1% specificity, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.796 (95% CI: 0.757 to 0.834, P<0.001). Furthermore, addition of S100A12 to established risk factors significantly improved the predictive power of reference models for ISR. S100A12 may serve as an independent marker to predict ISR in patients undergoing coronary DES implantation.

Long-term clinical safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon in the treatment of in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

There is a long-term safety issue in peripheral arterial disease patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon, this has also raised concerns on DCB in coronary intervention.

METHODS

Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine observational studies (OSs) were included with a total of 3,782 patients (1,827 in the DCB group, 1,955 in the drug-eluting stent [DES] group) being analyzed. The primary outcome measure-major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD), stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause death (AD), and coronary angiography outcomes included late lumen loss (LLL), minimum luminal diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

DCB treatment significantly reduced the LLL (MD: -0.13; [CI -0.23 to -0.03], p = .01). No difference was found for MLD (MD: -0.1; [CI -0.24 to 0.04], p = .17) and DS% (RR = 0.98 [CI 0.80-1.20], p = .86). There was no significant difference in TLR, TVR, MI, CD, ST, AD, and the overall incidence of MACEs between the two groups up to 3 years follow-up. Subgroup analysis for different type of ISR and DES showed no significant difference in the incidence of endpoints, and there is no difference when considering RCTs or OSs only.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of the DCB and DES in the treatment of ISR is comparable at up to 3 years follow-up.

Drug-Eluting Balloons versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Treating In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Heart Disease after PCI: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a common problem following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the best treatment strategy remains uncertain. There is some controversy over the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) for treating ISR.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was used to compare the efficacy of the DEB and second-generation DES in the treatment of ISR. The primary endpoint is the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoint is the occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death (ACM), cardiac death (CD), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), minimum luminal diameter (MLD), late luminal loss (LLL), binary restenosis (BR), and percent diameter stenosis (DS%).

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (4 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies) including 2020 patients with a follow-up of 6-25 months were included in the present study. There was a significant difference in the MLD between the two groups during follow-up (P=0.007, RR = 0.23, and 95% CI: 0.06-0.4 mm). There was no significant difference in LLL, BR, or DS% and the overall incidence of MACEs between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in the incidence of primary and secondary endpoints when considering RCTs or observational studies only.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of the DEB and second-generation DES in the treatment of ISR is comparable. However, our results need further verification through multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Drug-Eluting Balloon versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, drug-eluting balloon (DEB) appears to be an attractive alternative option for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Nevertheless, the clinical outcomes of DEB have seldom been compared to those of new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEB compared to those of new-generation DES in the treatment of ISR.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to November 2, 2017 was performed to identify pertinent articles comparing DEB to new-generation DES for the treatment of ISR. In addition, conference proceedings for the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and EuroPCR were also searched. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at the longest follow-up. Dichotomous variables were presented as risk ratios (RR s) with 95% confidence intervals (CI s), while the overall RR s were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies involving 2743 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, DEB was comparable to new-generation DES in terms of TLR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.89-1.72, P = 0.21), cardiac death (RR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.89-2.71, P = 0.12), major adverse cardiovascular event (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.98-1.48, P = 0.07), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.72-1.76, P = 0.62), and stent thrombosis (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.38-2.42, P = 0.92). However, DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality than new-generation DES (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.09-2.50, P = 0.02). This was especially true in the real-world observational studies (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.12-2.88, P = 0.02). In RCTs, however, no significant difference was found between the two treatment strategies in the risk of all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis showed that DEB and new-generation DES had comparable safety and efficacy for the treatment of ISR in RCTs. However, treatment with DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in the real-world nonrandomized studies.

Second-generation drug-eluting stents versus drug-coated balloons for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The benefit of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB) in coronary artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) for the prevention of target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, and mortality remains uncertain. Our aim was to synthesize the available evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that directly compare second-generation drug-eluting stents (SG-DES) and DCB for the treatment of coronary ISR.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs or observational studies, published up to March 15, 2017. A random effects model meta-analysis investigating clinical and angiographic outcomes was conducted for RCTs and observational studies that compared SG-DES versus DCB for the treatment of ISR.

RESULTS

Ten studies and 2,173 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The two treatment strategies were proven equal with regards to TLR, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and cardiac mortality in both randomized and observational studies. No difference was found among RCTs for all-cause mortality, while in observational studies, patients who were treated with SG-DES had a lower mortality compared to DCB (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27-0.83). In the pooled analysis also (RCTs and observational studies), SG-DES were associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to DCB. Patients treated with SG-DES were also superior in terms of minimal lumen diameter (standardized mean difference: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.12-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

The two treatment strategies are equal for the treatment of ISR, while the difference in all-cause mortality might be potentially explained by baseline differences in the two groups among real-world studies.