scholarly journals Paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty vs. drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a comprehensive, collaborative, individual patient data meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials (DAEDALUS study)

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (38) ◽  
pp. 3715-3728 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Giacoppo ◽  
Fernando Alfonso ◽  
Bo Xu ◽  
Bimmer E P M Claessen ◽  
Tom Adriaenssens ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims Consensus is lacking regarding the best treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). The two most effective treatments are angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) and repeat stenting with drug-eluting stent (DES) but individual trials were not statistically powered for clinical endpoints, results were heterogeneous, and evidence about comparative efficacy and safety in relevant subsets was limited. Methods and results The Difference in Anti-restenotic Effectiveness of Drug-eluting stent and drug-coated balloon AngiopLasty for the occUrrence of coronary in-Stent restenosis (DAEDALUS) study was a comprehensive, investigator-initiated, collaborative, individual patient data meta-analysis comparing angioplasty with PCB alone vs. repeat stenting with DES alone for the treatment of coronary ISR. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017075007). All 10 available randomized clinical trials were included with 1976 patients enrolled, 1033 assigned to PCB and 943 to DES. At 3-year follow-up, PCB was associated with a significant increase in the risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared with DES [hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% CI 1.02–1.70, P = 0.035; number-needed-to-harm 28.5]. There was a significant interaction between treatment effect and type of restenosed stent (P = 0.029) with a more marked difference in patients with DES-ISR and comparable effects in patients with bare-metal stent-ISR. At 3-year follow-up, the primary safety endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis was comparable between treatments (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58–1.09, P = 0.152). A pre-specified subgroup analysis indicated a significant interaction between treatment effect and type of DES used to treat ISR (P = 0.033), with a lower incidence of events associated with PCB compared with first-generation DES and similar effect between PCB and second-generation DES (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71–1.60, P = 0.764). Long-term all-cause mortality was similar between PCB and DES (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53–1.22, P = 0.310); results were consistent comparing PCB and non-paclitaxel-based DES (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.80–2.54, P = 0.235). Myocardial infarction and target lesion thrombosis were comparable between treatments. Conclusions In patients with coronary ISR, repeat stenting with DES is moderately more effective than angioplasty with PCB at reducing the need for TLR at 3 years. The incidence of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis was similar between groups. The rates of individual endpoints, including all-cause mortality, were not significantly different between groups.

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e017231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Zan Cai ◽  
Yong-Xiang Zhu ◽  
Xin-Yu Wang ◽  
Christos V Bourantas ◽  
Javaid Iqbal ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe 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).DesignMeta-analysis using data from randomised trial found by searches on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of major cardiovascular congresses.SettingOnly randomised trials comparing DES with DCB were included.ParticipantsPatients with ISR in the included trials.InterventionsNew-generation DES versus DCB.OutcomesThe 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.ResultsFive 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).ConclusionsInterventions 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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Chengbin Zheng ◽  
Jeehoon Kang ◽  
Kyung Woo Park ◽  
Jung-Kyu Han ◽  
Han-Mo Yang ◽  
...  

Objectives. The aim of our study was to investigate the predictors of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and to compare the in-stent restenosis (ISR) progression rates of different 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). Background. The predictors of early and late TLR after 2nd-generation DES implantation have not been fully evaluated. Methods. We analyzed 944 stented lesions from 394 patients who had at least two serial follow-up angiograms, using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analysis. The study endpoints were TLR and the velocity of diameter stenosis (DS) progression. Results. TLR occurred in 58 lesions (6.1%) during the first angiographic follow-up period and 23 de novo lesions (2.4%) during the following second interval. Independent predictors for early TLR were diabetes mellitus (DM) (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.29–5.15, p=0.007), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (HR 2.41, 95% CI 1.03–5.65, p=0.043), and postprocedure DS% (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05–1.11, p<0.001, per 1%), while predictors of late TLR were previous PCI (HR 9.43, 95% CI 2.58-34.52, p=0.001) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28-2.00, p<0.001). The ISR progression velocity (by DS%) was 12.1 ±21.0%/year and 3.7 ±10.1%/year during the first and second follow-up periods, respectively, which had no significant difference (p>0.05) between the four types of DESs. Conclusions. Our data showed that predictors for TLR may be different at different time intervals. DM, pervious PCI, and postprocedure DS could predict early TLR, while previous PCI and CRP level could predict late TLR. Contemporary DESs had similar rates of ISR progression rates. Trial Registration. This study was retrospectively registered and approved by the institutional review board of Seoul National University Hospital (no. 1801–138-918).


Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonghanne Park ◽  
Joo Myung Lee ◽  
Jeehoon Kang ◽  
Ki-Hyun Jeon ◽  
Ji-hyun Jung ◽  
...  

Objective: The optimal treatment option for in-stent restenosis (ISR) is not established. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloon (DEB), drug-eluting stent (DES) or plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) for treatment of ISR. Design: Systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis using random-effects model. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The pairwise posterior median odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was the effect measure. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, BioMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings through February 2014. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DEB, DES, or POBA for treatment of ISR. Results: This analysis included 2,059 patients from 11 RCTs. The risk of TLR was markedly lower in patients treated with DEB (OR 0.22, 95% CrI 0.10-0.42) or DES (OR 0.24, 95% CrI 0.11-0.47) than in those treated with POBA. The risk of TLR (OR 0.92, 95% CrI 0.43-1.90) was similar between DEB and DES. The risk of MI or all-cause mortality was lowest in the DEB group compared with DES or POBA, which did not meet statistical significance. The risk of MACE was significantly lower in DEB (OR 0.24, 95% CrI 0.12-0.39) or DES (OR 0.28, 95% CrI 0.14-0.53) than in POBA, but it was similar between DEB and DES group (OR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.45-1.50). The probability to be ranked as the best treatment were 59.9% (DEB), 40.1% (DES), and 0.1% (POBA) in terms of TLR, whereas, 63.0% (DEB), 35.3% (POBA), and 1.7% (DES) in terms of MI. Conclusions: DEB or DES was markedly better than POBA in preventing TLR, but not for MI or mortality in treatment of ISR. DEB resulted in less MI than DES without statistical significance.


2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (14) ◽  
pp. S19
Author(s):  
Hendy Bhaskara Perdana Putra ◽  
Quri Meihaerani Savitri ◽  
Wally Wahyu Mukhammad ◽  
Atiyatum Billah ◽  
Alan Dharmasaputra ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Juan Xiu ◽  
Hai-Tao Yang ◽  
Ying-Ying Zheng ◽  
Yi-Tong Ma ◽  
Xiang Xie

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document