Percutaneous revascularization strategies in small-vessel disease

Long-term outcomes of drug-coated balloons in patients with diffuse coronary lesions

Background

Drug-coated balloons (DCB), alone or in combination with drug-eluting stents (DES), may be used to treat diffuse coronary lesions. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of DCB in patients with diffuse coronary lesions.

Methods

Consecutive patients with diffuse coronary lesions (lesion length > 25 mm) who underwent DCB and/or DES between January 2015 and December 2019 were included in this prospective, observational, multicenter study. The DCB group included 355 patients (360 lesions), of which 142 patients (143 lesions, 39.7%) received the DCB-only strategy and 213 patients (217 lesions, 60.3%) received the hybrid strategy (DCB combined with DES). The DES group included 672 patients (831 lesions) treated with DES alone. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) during 3-year follow-up was the primary outcome of interest. The secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

Results

The two groups had comparable baseline clinical and lesion characteristics. Lesion length was similar (43.52 ± 16.46 mm vs. 44.87 ± 15.80 mm, P = 0.181), but the stent length in the DCB group was significantly shorter (24.02 ± 23.62 mm vs. 51.89 ± 15.81 mm, P < 0.001). Ten lesions (2.8%) in the DCB group received bailout stents. Over 3 years of follow-up, no significant difference in TLR incidence between the groups (7.3 vs. 8.3%, log-rank P = 0.636) was observed. Incidence of MACE also did not differ significantly (11.3 vs. 13.7%, log-rank P = 0.324). No thrombosis events occurred in the DCB group, while four patients (0.6%) in the DES group experienced stent thrombosis (log-rank P = 0.193). Moreover, similar TLR and MACE rates were observed between DCB-only and hybrid strategies (TLR: 6.4 vs. 8.0%, log-rank P = 0.651; MACE: 11.4 vs. 11.2%, log-rank P = 0.884).

Conclusion

Long-term outcomes show that the efficacy and safety of the DCB strategy (DCB alone or combined with DES) are similar to those of DES alone in diffuse coronary lesions. These findings suggest that this strategy is a promising alternative for select patients with diffuse coronary lesions.

Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Angioplasty Outcomes in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients with De Novo Small Coronary Vessels Disease

Background

The revascularization of small vessels using drug-eluting stents remains challenging. The use of the drug-coated balloon is an attractive therapeutic strategy in de novo lesions in small coronary vessels, particularly in the diabetic group. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of DCB-only angioplasty in small vessel disease.

Methods

A total of 1198 patients with small vessel disease treated with DCB-only strategy were followed. Patients were divided into the diabetic and nondiabetic groups. Clinical and angiographical follow-up were organized at 12 months. The primary endpoints were target lesion failure and secondary major adverse cardiac events.

Results

There was a significantly higher rate of target lesion failure among diabetic patients compared to nondiabetic [17 (3.9%) vs. 11 (1.4%), P=0.006], taken separately, the rate of target lesion revascularization significantly differed between groups with a higher rate observed in the diabetic group [9 (2%) vs. 4 (0.5%), P=0.014]. Diabetes mellitus remained an independent predictor for TLF (HR: 2.712, CI: 1.254–5.864, P=0.011) and target lesion revascularization (HR: 3.698, CI: 1.112–12.298, P=0.033) after adjustment. However, no significant differences were observed between groups regarding the target vessel myocardial infarction (0.6% vs. 0.1%, P=0.110) and MACE [19 (4.4%) vs. 21 (2.7%), P=0.120].

Conclusion

Drug-coated balloon-only treatment achieved lower incidence rates of TLF and MACE. Diabetes is an independent predictor for target lesion failure and target lesion revascularization at one year following DCB treatment in small coronary vessels. We observed no significant differences between groups regarding MACE in one year.

Drug-Coated Balloons: Hope or Hot Air: Update on the Role of Coronary DCB

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present manuscript reviews the mechanism of action of drug-coated balloons (DCBs), offering a brief summary of the main clinical evidence on these devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

DCBs are regular semi-compliant balloons coated with antiproliferative agents that are rapidly released on contact with the vessel intima, exerting an anti-restenotic effect. This technology may offer some benefits of drug-eluting stents, in particular for the treatment of restenotic lesions, small vessels, and in patients at high-bleeding risk, when the prolonged dual antiplatelet regimen should be avoided. Most recent data have pointed to a possible benefit of these devices in treating bare metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents in-stent restenosis (DES ISR), effectively reducing the recurrence of restenosis and avoiding additional layers of metal in the same coronary segment. In other clinical scenarios such as bifurcations, small vessels, and de novo lesions, data is more scarce and the benefits are still unclear. There are potential benefits related to the use of DCB in selected populations. However, larger clinical trials with longer follow-up are still needed to confirm the enthusiastic initial results.

Initial and late efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents for small and non-small coronary lesions from evaluating delayed late loss study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2 years in patients in whom everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) were implanted in small and non-small vessels. A small vessel is an important risk factor for restenosis with BMSs, even in the first generation DESs. The 690 patients with 690 lesions implanted with an EES were enrolled and divided into two groups by vessel reference diameter (RD): >2.5 mm for non-small vessels (Non-S-group) and ≤2.5 mm for small vessels (S-group). Two years later, the 365 patients with no restenosis at 8 months who underwent angiography were enrolled into the late catch-up study. At the initial 8-month follow-up, the rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) of both groups were not significantly different (restenosis 3.9 vs 6.5%, p = 0.17; TLR 3.9 vs 6.5%, p = 0.17). At the late 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the late loss (0.36 ± 0.66 vs 0.34 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.14), net gain (1.50 ± 0.75 vs 1.26 ± 0.60 mm, p = 0.39), late catch-up restenosis rate (5.1 vs 3.4%, p = 0.38), TLR (4.9 vs 2.7%, p = 0.40), and delayed late loss (0.14 ± 0.58 vs 0.15 ± 0.49 mm, p = 0.10) between both groups. There is no correlation between delayed late loss and RD in all patients(r = -0.009) and in AMI patients (r = -0.004). These results demonstrate that the initial and late catch-up restenosis rates of small coronary vessels with EES placement were excellent, the same as for non-small coronary vessels. We suggest that involvement of small coronary arteries may not be a risk factor for restenosis and results of stenting for small coronary arteries with EES placement were excellent.