Drug-Coated Balloons — The New Gold Standard for Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis?

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons for the treatment of in-stent restenosis as compared with drug-eluting stents and with conventional balloon angioplasty

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still associated with a high incidence of recurrence. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for the treatment of ISR as compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

Between January 2006 and May 2012 a total of 177 patients (188 lesions, 64.1 ± 11.7 years old) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR were retrospectively enrolled. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with DEB (n = 58, 32.8%), conventional BA (n = 65, 36.7%), or DES (n = 54, 30.5%). The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization(TLR).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were not different except for a history of previous MI, which was more frequent in patients treated by conventional BA or DES than in patients treated by DEB (40.0% vs. 48.1% vs. 17.2%, respectively, p = 0.002). The total incidences of MACEs were 10.7%, 7.4%, and 15.4% in patients treated by DEB, DES, or conventional BA, respectively (p > 0.05). TLR was more frequent in patients treated by conventional BA than in patients treated by DEB or DES, but this was not statistically significant (10.8% vs. 6.9% vs. 3.7%, p > 0.05 between all group pairs, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that percutaneous coronary intervention using DEB might be a feasible alternative to conventional BA or DES implantation for treatment of coronary ISR. Further large-scaled, randomized study assessing long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes will be needed.

Drug-eluting versus plain balloon angioplasty for the treatment of failing dialysis access: final results and cost-effectiveness analysis from a prospective randomized controlled trial (NCT01174472)

OBJECTIVE

To report the final results and cost-effectiveness analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial investigating drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus plain balloon angioplasty (BA) for the treatment of failing dialysis access (NCT01174472).

METHODS

40 patients were randomized to angioplasty with either DEB (n=20) or BA (n=20) for treatment of significant venous stenosis causing a failing dialysis access. Both arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) and synthetic arteriovenous grafts (AVG) were included. Angiographic follow up was scheduled every two months. Primary endpoints were technical success and target lesion primary patency at 1 year. Cumulative and survival analysis was performed. Incremental net benefit (INB) and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) was drawn.

RESULTS

Baseline variables were equally distributed between the two groups. At 1 year, cumulative target lesion primary patency was significantly higher after DEB application (35% vs. 5% after BA, p<0.001). Overall, median primary patency was 0.64 years in case of DEB vs. 0.36 years in case of BA (p=0.0007; unadjusted HR=0.27 [95%CI: 0.13-0.58]; Cox adjusted HR=0.23 [95%CI: 0.10-0.50]). ICER was 2198 Euros (€) per primary patency year of dialysis access gained. INB was 1068€ (95%CI: 31-2105€) for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 5000€ (corresponding acceptability probability >97%).

CONCLUSION

DEB angioplasty may be a cost-effective option that significantly improves patency after angioplasty of venous stenoses of failing vascular dialysis access. Further large-scale randomized trials are warranted.