Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Through meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCB), compared with drug-eluting stents (DES) or uncoated devices, in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcomes were late lumen loss (LLL), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on clinical indications, whether DCBs were used with a systematic or bailout stent, and types of DESs.

RESULTS

The present meta-analysis demonstrated that DCBs elicit significantly lower incidences of TLR, MACE, and LLL, compared with uncoated devices, and similar incidences, compared with DESs, in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Subgroup analysis indicated that DCBs used with a bailout stent achieved lower incidences of binary restenosis and myocardial infarction, compared with uncoated devices, and provided less LLL than DESs. DCBs showed similar rates of TLR and MACE, with significantly less LLL, than DESs in treating de novo small-vessel diseases. The clinical efficacy of DCBs was similar to that of second-generation DES.

CONCLUSION

Overall, DCB is favored over bare metal stent alone in treating de novo coronary lesions. DCBs appear to be a promising alternative to DESs in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for In-Stent Restenosis Versus De Novo Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background In-stent restenosis (ISR) is commonly encountered even in the era of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a paucity of data on the comparative outcomes of PCI for ISR lesions versus de novo lesions. Methods and Results An electronic search was conducted for MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase through August 2022 for studies comparing the clinical outcomes after PCI for ISR versus de novo lesions. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The final analysis included 12 studies, with a total of 708 391 patients, of whom 71 353 (10.3%) underwent PCI for ISR. The weighted follow-up duration was 29.1 months. Compared with de novo lesions, PCI for ISR was associated with a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.18-1.46]). There was no difference on a subgroup analysis of chronic total occlusion lesions versus none (P_interaction=0.69). PCI for ISR was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality (OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.02-1.04]), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.11-1.29]), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.29-1.55]), and stent thrombosis (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.11-1.87]), but no difference in cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]). Conclusions PCI for ISR is associated with higher incidence of adverse cardiac events compared with PCI for de novo lesions. Future efforts should be directed toward prevention of ISR and exploring novel treatment strategies for ISR lesions.

Mid-term clinical outcomes from use of Sirolimus coated balloon in coronary intervention; data from real world population

BACKGROUND

Use of drug coated balloons (DCBs) in coronary intervention is escalating. There is a plethora of data on Paclitaxcel-DCB. However, when it comes of stents, Limus-drugs are preferred over Paclitaxel. There is very limited data on Sirolimus coated balloons (SCB). MagicTouch-SCB (Concept Medical, FL) elutes Sirolimus via nano-technology and have been used in our centers since March 2018. We report a mid-term follow-up with this relatively novel-technology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients treated with MagicTouch-SCB between March-2018 and February-2019. Results are reported as cardiac-death, target-vessel myocardial-infarction (TVMI), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE). During the study period, 288-patients (373-lesions) with a mean age of 65.8 were treated with MagicTouch-SCB. 84% (n = 241) were male, 155 (54%) were in the setting of acute coronary syndrome, 38% (n = 110) had diabetes and 62% (n = 233) were in de-novo lesions. Most lesions treated were in the LAD/diagonal-system (n = 170; 46%). Pre-dilatation was performed in 92% (n = 345) of cases. Bailout stenting was required in 9% lesions (n = 35). The mean diameter and length of SCBs were 2.64 ± 0.56 mm and 24 ± 8.9 mm respectively. During a median follow-up of 363 days (IQR: 278-435), cardiac death and TVMI occurred in 5-patients (1.7%) and 10-patients (3.4%) respectively, TLR per-lesion was 12%. The MACE rate was 10%. There were no documented cases of acute vessel closure.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from mid-term follow-up with this relatively new technology SCB is encouraging with a low rates of hard endpoints and acceptable MACE rates despite complex group of patients and lesion subsets.

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes With Late/Very Late Stent Thrombosis and de novo Lesions: A Single-Center Observational Cohort Study of Clinical Outcomes and Influencing Factors

Background: This study compared differences in the risk factors and clinical outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and non-DM patients with de novo lesions (DNLs) and late or very late stent thrombosis (LST/VLST).

Methods: We used angiography to screen 4,151 patients with acute coronary syndrome for DNL and LST/VLST lesions. Overall, 3,941 patients were included in the analysis and were allocated to the DM (n = 1,286) or non-DM (n = 2,665) group at admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and ischemic stroke, within a median follow-up period of 698 days.

Results: In the group with a total white blood cell count >10 × 10⁹/L (P = 0.004), a neutral granular cell count >7 × 10⁹/L (P = 0.030), and neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio >1.5 (P = 0.041), revascularization was better for DNL than for LST/VLST lesions. Among DM patients with DNLs, each unit increase in age was associated with a 53.6% increase in the risk of MACEs [hazard ratio (HR): 1.536, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.300–1.815, P < 0.0001]. Older age (≥65 years) was associated with a significantly greater risk of MACEs (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, each standard deviation (SD) increase in the level of peak white blood cell counts was associated with a 50.1% increase in the risk of MACEs (HR, 1.501; 95% CI, 1.208–1.864; P = 0.0002). When stratifying the DM population with DNLs according to the D-dimer baseline and peak levels <0.5 vs. ≥0.5 mg/L, the high D-dimer group at baseline had a 2.066-fold higher risk of MACEs (P < 0.0001), and the high peak level D-dimer group had a 1.877-fold higher risk of MACEs (P = 0.001) compared to the low-level groups. Among DM patients with LST/VLST, each unit increase in age was associated with a 75.9% increase in the risk of MACEs (HR: 1.759, 95% CI, 1.052–2.940, P = 0.032). Furthermore, for each SD increase in the peak D-dimer level, the risk of MACEs increased by 59.7% (HR, 1.597; 95% CI, 1.110–2.295; P = 0.041).

Conclusion: Following successful primary PCI, the measurement of baseline and peak D-dimer values may help identify individuals at high cardiovascular risk. This suggests a potential benefit of lowering D-dimer levels among T2DM patients with DNL. Furthermore, age and the peak D-dimer values may facilitate the risk stratification of T2DM patients with LST/VLST.

Clinical outcomes following ST-elevation myocardial infarction secondary to stent thrombosis treated by percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) secondary to stent thrombosis (ST) compared to those presenting with STEMI secondary to a de novo culprit lesion and treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

ST is an infrequent but serious complication of PCI with substantial associated morbidity and mortality, however with limited data.

METHODS

We studied consecutive patients who underwent PCI for STEMI from 2005 to 2013 enrolled prospectively in the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. Patients were divided into two groups: the ST group comprised patients where the STEMI was due to ST and the de novo group formed the remainder of the STEMI cohort and all patients were treated by PCI. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Compared to the de novo group (n = 3,835), the ST group (n = 128; 3.2% of STEMI) had higher rates of diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia, established cardiovascular diseases, myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease, all p < .01. Within the ST group, very-late ST was the most common form of ST, followed by late and early ST (64, 19, and 17%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the ST group and the de novo group (4.7 vs. 7.1%, p = .29). On multivariate analysis, ST was not an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.07-1.09, p = .068).

CONCLUSION

The short-term prognosis of patients with STEMI secondary to ST who were treated by PCI was comparable to that of patients with STEMI due to de novo lesions.

Long term outcome after treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions using three different drug coated balloons

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of three currently available drug coated balloons (DCB) for the treatment of de-novo coronary lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry. Between 2009 and 2017, three currently available DCB brands used in the treatment of de novo lesions were included. Outcomes were clinically driven restenosis and target lesion thrombosis (TLT) (per device) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization (per patient) at 4 years. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to adjust for differences.

RESULTS

We included 6715 lesions treated with DCBs, 4483 SeQuent® Please (S-DCB), 1071 IN.PACT Falcon (I-DCB) and 1161 Pantera® Lux (P-DCB), in 5670 patients. The mean DCB diameter was 2.4 mm. Bailout stenting occurred in 6.7% of lesions. Angiographic success was 98.5%. The overall cumulative rate of restenosis was 5.5% (299 events). The risk for reported restenosis did not significantly differ between I-DCB vs S-DCB, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.34, P-DCB vs S-DCB aHR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.23 and I-DCB vs P-DCB aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.72-1.68. The cumulative risk for TLT was 0.8% in all three DCBs. The risk for MACE or individual components of MACE did not differ between the three patient-groups.

CONCLUSION

In de novo coronary lesions, we found comparable long-term efficacy with three currently available DCB brands. DCB angioplasty was feasible with low risk for long-term restenosis and TLT.

Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes With Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

The role of drug‐coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions is not well established.

Methods and Results

Electronic databases and major conference proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared DCBs with stents or angioplasty for de novo coronary lesions. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization. Summary estimates were conducted using random‐effects analysis complemented by several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 2483 patients were included. At a mean follow up of 12 months, DCBs were associated with no difference in the incidence of target lesion revascularization as compared with alternative strategies (risk ratio [RR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.35–1.76). There was no difference in treatment effect based on the indication (ie, small‐vessel disease, myocardial infarction, bifurcation, or high bleeding risk) (P_interaction=0.22). DCBs were associated with lower target lesion revascularization compared with bare metal stents and similar target lesion revascularization compared with drug‐eluting stents (P_interaction=0.03). There was no difference between DCBs and control in terms of major adverse cardiac events, vessel thrombosis, or cardiovascular mortality. However, DCBs were associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25–0.90) and all‐cause mortality (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22–0.94).

Conclusions

In patients with de novo coronary lesions, use of DCBs was associated with comparable clinical outcomes irrespective of the indication or comparator device. DCBs had a similar rate of target lesion revascularization compared with drug‐eluting stents. A randomized trial powered for clinical outcomes and evaluating the role of DCBs for all‐comers is warranted.

Long-term efficacy of drug coated balloons compared with new generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing drug coated balloons (DCB) with new generation drug-eluting stents (nDES) for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions are lacking.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2016, DCB or nDES used for treatment of de novo coronary lesions at our institution were included, in total 1,197 DEB and 6,458 nDES. We evaluated target lesions restenosis (TLR) and definite target lesion thrombosis (TLT). Propensity score modeling were utilized to study adjusted associations between treatment and outcomes.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 901days. DCB patients were older, with higher cardiovascular risk profile. Bailout stenting after DCB was performed in 8% of lesions. The cumulative rate of TLR and TLT was 7.0 vs. 4.9% and 0.2 vs. 0.8% for DCB vs. nDES, respectively. Before adjustment, DCB was associated with a higher risk of TLR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.94] and a non-significantly lower risk of TLT (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.07-1.24), compared to nDES. In the propensity matched population consisted of 1,197 DCB and 1,197 nDES, treatment with DCB was associated with similar risk for TLR (adjusted HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.72-1.53) but significantly lower risk for TLT (adjusted HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.82) compared to nDES.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with DCB was associated with a similar risk of TLR and a lower risk of definite TLT compared with nDES. In selected cases, DCB appears as a good alternative to nDES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

Coronary artery aneurysm formation after drug-coated balloon treatment of de novo lesions: Two case reports

RATIONALE

The safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) technology have primarily been proven in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. Whereas increasing evidences show that DCB use was feasible in certain de novo coronary lesions. In 2012, Vassilev reported the 1st case in which a coronary aneurysm formed after a DCB was used to treat drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis. To date, limited information has been reported on coronary artery aneurysm (CAA) development following DCB treatment of de novo lesions.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 42-year-old male underwent delayed coronary angiography due to extensive anterior wall myocardial infarction. After balloon predilation in the mid-left anterior descending (LAD) artery, the residual 30% stenosis without major dissection was treated with a DCB. Angiographic follow-up at 6 and 12 months revealed an aneurysm in the treated area of the LAD artery, with positive vascular remodeling behind this aneurysm. A 54-year-old male with nonstent thrombosis elevation myocardial infarction underwent elective catheterization. Coronary angiography revealed critical stenosis in the LAD and significant narrowing at the distal segments of both the left circumflex artery (LCX) and the nondominant right coronary artery. After predilation of the lesion in the LCX, the residual 30% stenosis was treated with a DCB. The lesion in the LAD was treated with a DCB either. Angiography follow-up at 6 months revealed good results in the LAD; however, an aneurysm was observed in the DCB-treated area of the LCX.

DIAGNOSIS

The CAA formation after DCB treatment of de novo lesions.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

Because the 2 patients were asymptomatic upon diagnosis, the aneurysms were left untreated. Long-term dual antiplatelet therapy and intense follow-up were recommended.

LESSONS

Our cases raise questions regarding the safety of DCB treatment for de novo lesions in real-world contexts. There might be a need to clarify the appropriate doses for drugs coated on DCBs. Although indications for DCB treatment for de novo coronary lesions should not be overly aggressively broadened, the potential role of such treatment in this context merits additional elucidation in future studies.

Drug-eluting balloons with provisional bail-out or adjunctive stenting in de novo coronary artery lesions-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for treatment of de novo coronary lesions remains controversial. The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessed DEB with bare-metal stents (BMS) and also DEB with provisional bail-out stents ('DEB-only' strategy), to other conventional options: plain-old balloon angioplasty (POBA), BMS and drug-eluting stents (DES).

Methods

A systematic literature search from January 2000 until May 2017 was conducted. Primary outcome measure, late lumen loss (LLL); and secondary outcomes; binary restenosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death and stent thrombosis were analysed.

Results

Seventeen RCTs were included with 2,616 patients. Several comparative groups showed significant differences. DEB with BMS were inferior to DES for LLL [mean difference (MD) =0.12 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03 to 0.22; P=0.01]; and binary restenosis [risk ratio (RR) =1.89; (CI, 1.13 to 3.18); P=0.02]. DEB with BMS was superior to BMS for LLL [MD =-0.27 mm; (-0.45 to -0.10); P=0.002]; and MACE [RR =0.64; (0.46 to 0.90); P=0.010]. Finally, DEB alone was superior to POBA for LLL [MD =-0.39 mm; (-0.67 to -0.11); P=0.006] and binary restenosis [RR =0.20; (0.05 to 0.85); P=0.03] in bifurcation lesions.

Conclusions

The results of this meta-analysis showed that whilst DEB with BMS is superior to BMS alone, the combination is inferior to DES for treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Thus, DEB + BMS should not be applied in de novo lesions unless in patients who have absolute contraindications to DES. DEB alone, however, should be considered for relative contraindications to DES such as small vessel disease and bifurcation lesions.

Patient profile and periprocedural outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in comparison with drug-eluting and bare-metal stent implantation. Experience from ORPKI Polish National Registry 2014-2015

INTRODUCTION

There are limited data on the comparison of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and drug-eluting stent (DES)/bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in an unselected population of patients with coronary artery disease.

AIM

To compare the periprocedural outcomes and patient profile of BVS and DES/BMS implantation in an all-comer population from the ORPKI Polish National Registry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 141,324 consecutive patients from 151 invasive cardiology centers in Poland were included in this prospective registry between January 2014 and June 2015. Periprocedural data on patients with at least one BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA), DES or BMS (all available types) implantation in de novo lesions during index percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina (SA) or acute coronary syndrome were collected.

RESULTS

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold was the most often used in patients with SA, in single-vessel disease and in younger male patients. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation was significantly more often associated with periprocedural administration of ticagrelor/prasugrel (6.8% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.001) and use of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in comparison with the DES/BMS group (2.8% vs. 0.6% and 1.8% vs. 0.1%, respectively; p = 0.001 for both). The incidence of periprocedural death was significantly lower in the BVS group than the DES/BMS group (0.04% vs. 0.32%; p = 0.02), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustment for covariates. On the other hand, coronary artery perforation occurred significantly more often during BVS delivery (0.31% vs. 0.12%; p = 0.01), and BVS implantation was identified as an independent predictor of coronary artery perforation in multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR = 6.728, 95% CI: 2.394-18.906; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with BVS implantation presented an acceptable safety and efficacy profile in comparison with the DES/BMS group. However, lower risk patients were the most frequent candidates for BVS implantation.