Comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent in patients with in-stent restenosis: insight from randomized controlled trials

The effect of the debulking by excimer laser coronary angioplasty on long-term outcome compared with drug-coating balloon: insights from optical frequency domain imaging analysis

This study evaluated the 1-year efficacy of excimer laser coronary angioplasty (ELCA) before drug-coated balloon (DCB) dilatation for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Forty consecutive patients with ISR were treated by DCB with or without the use of ELCA (ELCA plus DCB, N = 20; DCB alone, N = 20). Debulking efficiency (DE) value was defined as the neointima area on optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) debulked by ELCA. The patients in the ELCA plus DCB group were divided into two groups (greater DE (GDE), N = 10; smaller DE (SDE), N = 10) based on the median value of DE. Thereafter, the ISR segment was prepared with a scoring balloon, followed by DCB. At follow-up, binary restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were evaluated. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics such as age, comorbidity, and ISR type. Overall, the incidence of neoatherosclerosis in the ISR segment was 17.5%. Post-PCI, acute gain of minimum lumen diameter on quantitative coronary angiography and of minimum lumen area on OFDI was numerically higher in the GDE than in the SDE and the DCB alone group. At follow-up, the occurrences of binary restenosis and TLR in the ELCA plus DCB group were 20.0% and 10.0%; these values in the DCB alone group were 20.0% and 20.0%, respectively. Two patients from the SDE and none from the GDE developed TLR. DCB alone treatment was inferior to ELCA plus DCB treatment. However, greater ELCA debulking might be required to obtain optimal outcomes.

Comparison of new-generation drug-eluting stents versus drug-coated balloon for in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to compare angiographic and clinical outcomes of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) versus drug-coated balloon (DCB) in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR).

DESIGN

Meta-analysis using data from randomised trial found by searches on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of major cardiovascular congresses.

SETTING

Only randomised trials comparing DES with DCB were included.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with ISR in the included trials.

INTERVENTIONS

New-generation DES versus DCB.

OUTCOMES

The angiographic and clinical outcomes including cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularisation (TLR), target vessel revascularisation (TVR), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis were investigated.

RESULTS

Five trials including 913 patients were eligible and included. Pooled analysis in angiographic results identified that new-generation DES were associated with higher acute luminal gain (-0.31 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.20, P<0.001) and lower per cent diameter stenosis (risk ratio (RR): 0.28, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55, P=0.04). DES significantly reduced the risk of TLR (RR: 1.96, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.28, P=0.01) compared with DCB; however, there was no statistical differences for MACE (RR: 1.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.17, P=0.53), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.48, P=0.69) and cardiac death (RR: 1.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 5.39, P=0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions with new-generation DES appear to be associated with significant reduction in per cent diameter stenosis and TLR at short-term follow-up, but had similar MACE, myocardial infarction and cardiac death for patients with coronary ISR compared with DCB. Appropriately powered studies with longer term follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings.

Effects of elemene on inhibiting proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells and promoting reendothelialization at the stent implantation site

Elemene coated stents prepared by electrospray could inhibit proliferation of VSMCs and promote endothelialization after implantation into rabbit iliac arteries.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Catheters and Everolimus-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: The Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this prospective randomized noninferiority study was to compare the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) catheters and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in the treatment of bare metal stent restenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 136 patients were enrolled in the study. Each treatment group included 68 patients with 74 in-stent restenotic lesions. The primary end point was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 12 months. Secondary end points were the incidence of binary in-stent restenosis and 12-month major adverse cardiac events. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of LLL difference between treatments (0.149-0.558) was greater than noninferiority margin (0.12), which demonstrates both noninferiority and superiority of PEB treatment. Furthermore, the PEB group had significantly less 12-month LLL than the EES group (0.02 versus 0.19 mm; P=0.0004). The difference in the incidence of repeated binary restenosis (8.7% versus 19.12%; P=0.078) and 12-month major adverse cardiac events (10.29% versus 19.12%; P=0.213) was not significant. The 12-month LLL was significantly less in the PEB group and also in subgroups with in-stent restenosis >10 mm (0.05 versus 0.26 mm; P=0.0002) and artery diameter <3 mm (0.05 versus 0.16 mm; P=0.003) compared with the EES groups, but not in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus (P=0.254). In the EES group, repetitive binary restenosis had a significantly greater chance of occurring (odds ratio=3.132; 95% confidence interval, 1.058-9.269; P=0.039), even when adjusting for other risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of bare metal stent restenosis using PEB led to significantly less 12-month LLL than the implantation of second-generation EES.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01735825.

Comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis of available evidence

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains an important concern despite the recent advances in the drug-eluting stent (DES) technology. The introduction of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) offers a good solution to such problem.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a meta-analysis to assess the clinical efficiency and safety of DEB compared with DES in patients with DES-ISR.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted and all randomized and observational studies which compared DEB with DES in patients with DES-ISR were included. The primary outcome measure-major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-as well as individual events as target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD) and all-cause mortality, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three randomized and 4 observational studies were included with a total of 2052 patients. MACE (relative risk [RR]=1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.46, P=0.99), TLR (RR=1.15 [CI 0.79 to 1.68], P=0.44), ST (RR=0.37[0.10 to 1.34], P=0.13), MI (RR=0.97 [0.49 to 1.91], P=0.93) and CD (RR=0.73 [0.22 to 2.45], P=0.61) were not different between patients treated with DEB and with DES. However, all-cause mortality was lower in patients treated with DEB (RR=0.45 [0.23 to 0.87, P=0.019) and in particular when compared to only first generation DES (RR 0.33 [0.15-0.74], P=0.007). There was no statistical evidence for publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis showed that DEB and DES have similar efficacy and safety for the treatment of DES-ISR.

Efficacy of various percutaneous interventions for in-stent restenosis: comprehensive network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a difficult problem in interventional cardiology. The relative efficacy and safety of available interventions is not clear. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis using both direct evidence and indirect evidence to compare all available interventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched electronic databases for randomized trials comparing ≥2 treatments for ISR. A network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian approach. Eleven treatments were compared in 31 studies with 8157 patient-years follow-up. Compared with balloon angioplasty, everolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio [95% credibility interval], 0.13 [0.048-0.35]), paclitaxel-eluting balloon (0.32 [0.20-0.49]), paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon (0.054 [0.0017-0.5]), paclitaxel-eluting stent (0.39 [0.24-0.62]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.32 [0.18-0.50]) are associated with lower target vessel revascularization. Balloon angioplasty is not different from cutting balloon (0.73 [0.31-1.5]), excimer laser (0.89 [0.29-2.7]), rotational atherectomy (0.96 [0.53-1.7]), and vascular brachytherapy (0.60 [0.35-1.0]). In drug-eluting stent ISR, balloon angioplasty was inferior to everolimus-eluting stent (0.19 [0.049-0.76]), paclitaxel-eluting balloon (0.43 [0.18-0.80]), paclitaxel-eluting stent (0.35 [0.13-0.76]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.36 [0.11-0.86]) for target vessel revascularization. There was no difference between treatments in probable or definitive stent thrombosis. The results of binary restenosis and target lesion revascularization were similar. Paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon, everolimus-eluting stent, and paclitaxel-eluting balloon have the highest probability of being in the top 3 treatments based on low target lesion revascularization, but there was no statistical significant difference between them.

CONCLUSIONS

Balloon angioplasty is inferior to all drug-eluting treatments for ISR, including drug-eluting stent ISR. Drug-eluting stent, particularly everolimus-eluting stent, or paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon and paclitaxel-eluting balloon should be preferred for treating ISR.