Improved Outcomes of Combined Main Branch Stenting and Side Branch Drug-Coated Balloon versus Two-Stent Strategy in Patients with Left Main Bifurcation Lesions

Background. Drug-eluting stent (DES) plus drug-coated balloon (DCB) is a safe and effective treatment strategy for coronary artery bifurcation lesions, but there is no report about this strategy being used for left main (LM) bifurcation lesions. We aim to explore the efficacy and safety of DES plus DCB in the treatment of LM bifurcation lesions. Methods. A total of 100 patients diagnosed with LM bifurcation lesions by coronary angiography were retrospectively enrolled at our center from January 2018 to December 2019. They received either a two-stent strategy or a main branch (MB) stenting plus side branch (SB) DCB strategy and were accordingly divided into the 2-DES group and the DES + DCB group. Patients treated with DES + DCB were compared with a cohort of matched patients treated with a 2-DES strategy. Clinical data was collected and quantitative coronary analysis was performed. Results. For immediate postoperative angiography, though the two groups had no differences in the minimal luminal diameter (MLD) and luminal stenosis of MB, the DES + DCB group had significantly lower SB ostial MLD and a higher degree of residual lumen stenosis than the 2-DES group ( P < 0.05 ). At the time of follow-up, the SB ostial MLD of the DES + DCB group was higher than that of the 2-DES group, but lumen stenosis, late lumen loss (LLL), and LLL at the distal end of the left MB were all smaller than those of the 2-DES group ( P s < 0.05 ). Furthermore, the incidence of lumen restenosis and MACE between the two groups had no significance. Conclusion. The combination of DES and DCB is relatively safe and effective for the treatment of LM bifurcation lesions, and this strategy seems to have advantages in reducing LLL at the SB ostium.

Comparison of a Bioresorbable, Magnesium-Based Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Permanent, Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent for Treating Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: the PRAGUE-22 Study

Background Magnesium-based bioresorbable Magmaris stents are rapidly resorbed. Few randomized studies have evaluated the efficacy of such stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Aim To investigate late lumen loss as assessed via quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with Magmaris stents or permanent, everolimus-eluting metallic Xience stents. Methods and Results This PRAGUE-22 study was a two-centre, investigator-initiated, randomized study. Fifty patients were randomized based on the inclusion criteria for acute coronary syndrome and the anatomical suitability to receive Magmaris or Xience stents. The patient characteristics did not differ between the Magmaris group (n = 25) and Xience group (n = 25). The mean ages were 57.0 ± 10.5 vs. 55.5 ± 9.2 years (p = 0.541) and the total implanted stent length was 24.6 ± 10.7 mm vs. 27.6 ± 11.1 mm (p = 0.368), respectively. Four clinical events occurred in the Magmaris group and one in the Xience group during 12 months of follow-up. The extent of late lumen loss (assessed via QCA) at 12 months was greater in the Magmaris group than in the Xience group (0.54 ± 0.70 vs. 0.11 ± 0.37 mm; p = 0.029). The late lumen loss diameter (measured via OCT) in the Magmaris group was also significantly larger than that in the Xience group (0.59 ± 0.37 vs. 0.22 ± 0.20 mm; p = 0.01). Conclusion Implantation of a magnesium-based bioresorbable stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome is associated with a greater extent of late lumen loss at the 12-month follow-up compared with implantation of a permanent, everolimus-eluting metallic stent. Trial Registration: ISRCTN89434356

Drug coated balloons for coronary artery bifurcation lesions: A systematic review and focused meta-analysis

Objectives We sought to systematically review the evidence supporting the role of drug coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Background DCBs are emerging as an attractive alternative treatment strategy for treating coronary bifurcations due to simplifying the approach and reducing rates of stent related complications. We systematically reviewed the evidence for DCB use in coronary bifurcations and conducted a focused meta-analysis on late lumen loss in the side branch comparing DCB and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA). Methods This study was conducted in line with the PRISMA statement. All studies (including both RCTs and observational studies, excluding case reports) using DCB as part of a bifurcation strategy were included in this review. A literature search identified a total of ten studies for inclusion. A focused meta-analysis was undertaken for the use of DCB in side-branch compared with POBA. Mean late lumen loss was used with a random effects model due to heterogeneity. Results DCB was found to be superior to POBA for side branch treatment in bifurcations (p = 0.01). There are four studies that investigated the use of DCB for main branch treatment in a bifurcation, with evidence supporting its safety in main branches of bifurcation lesions, while prospective observational studies have demonstrated favourable target lesion revascularisation rates. Conclusion Although there is a lack of robust RCTs comparing DCBs with current generation DES, DCBs appear safe in main branch bifurcation lesions with improved side branch late lumen loss when compared with DES or POBA.

A Non-inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents on Angiographic Outcomes for Coronary De Novo Lesions

Background Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been proved efficacy for coronary small vessel disease, but data regarding outcomes of DCB in common de novo lesions (including reference vessel diameter more than 3.0mm) compared with new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) are lacking. We hypothesized that a DCB-only strategy for coronary de novo lesions would be non-inferior to DES treatment on angiographic outcomes. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, we compared the effect of DCB with DES on late lumen loss (LLL) at 9-month angiographic follow-up and 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results From July 2017 to July 2018, 288 consecutive patients with reference vessel diameter (RVD) between 2.25 and 4.0mm were screened. After proper pre-dilation, 170 patients were enrolled and randomized to the DCB and the DES groups at 1:1 ratio. Seven patients withdrew the consent forms during hospital stay (1 in DCB group, 6 in DES group). Two patients in DCB group underwent bailout stenting due to severe dissection after DCB release. The primary endpoint of 9-month LLL was −0.19±0.49mm with the DCB versus 0.03±0.64mm with the DES. The one-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was −0.04mm, achieving non-inferiority of the DCB compared with the DES (P=0.019). The 12-month cumulative MACE rate was similar in the DCB and DES groups (2.44% vs. 6.33%, P=0.226). Conclusions In this prospective study, the DCB only strategy for de novo lesion was non-inferior to the new-generation DES in terms of 9-month late lumen loss.

Microcrystalline paclitaxel-coated balloon for revascularization of femoropopliteal artery disease: Three-year outcomes of the randomized BIOPAC trial

The aim of the BIOPAC trial was to determine long-term safety and efficacy of a novel microcrystalline paclitaxel-coated balloon (mcPCB) with a biocompatible polymer as an excipient in the treatment of occlusive femoropopliteal lesions. In this first-in-human prospective controlled randomized trial, 66 patients with femoropopliteal, symptomatic (Rutherford stages 2B to 5) occlusive arterial disease were randomized to either mcPCB (study group) or POBA (plain old balloon angioplasty) (control group) on a 1:1 basis. Late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months was the primary endpoint of the study and serious adverse events (SAE: death, amputation, repeated revascularization) were considered a composite secondary endpoint. Routine angiography was scheduled for all study subjects at 6-month follow-up; outpatient appointments were scheduled at 12 and 36 months after intervention. At 6 months, the LLL was 63% lower in the mcPCB group compared to the POBA group (0.52 ± 1.2 vs 1.39 ± 1.1 mm; psup < 0.01). Binary restenosis occurred in 23% vs 52% of patients ( p = 0.02). At 3 years, the prevalence of SAE was significantly lower in the mcPCB group (33.3 vs 63.3%; p = 0.02), which mainly resulted from a twofold reduction in target vessel revascularization rate (28.6 vs 59.3%; p = 0.02). The difference in mortality was nonsignificant (7.4 vs 14.3%; p = 0.42). Patients with mcPCB were less symptomatic and less likely to adhere to secondary prevention measures. In this pivotal trial, a novel mcPCB proved superior to POBA concerning LLL at 6-month follow-up, and SAE at 12 months. This result was sustained up to 3 years. There was no difference between groups regarding mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02145065

Efficacy of Low-Pressure Inflation of Oversized Drug-Coated Balloon for Coronary Artery Disease

Objectives. This study sought to assess the efficacy of oversized drug-coated balloon (DCB) inflation at low pressure for the prevention of acute dissections and late restenosis. Background. The major limitation of DCB coronary angioplasty is the occurrence of severe dissection after inflation of DCB. Methods. Between 2014 and 2018, 273 consecutive patients were retrospectively studied. 191 lesions (154 patients) treated by oversized DCB inflation at low pressure (<4 atm, 2.4 ± 1.2 atm, DCB/artery ratio 1.14 ± 0.22; LP group) were compared with 135 lesions (119 patients) treated by the standard DCB technique (7.1 ± 2.2 atm, DCB/artery ratio 1.03 ± 0.16; SP group). Results. Although the lesions in the LP group were more complex than those in the SP group (smaller reference diameter (2.38 mm vs. 2.57 mm, P = 0.011 ), longer lesions (11.7 mm vs. 10.5 mm, P = 0.10 ), and more frequent use of rotational atherectomy (45.0% vs. 28.1%, P = 0.003 ), there was no significant difference in the NHLBI type of dissections between the two groups (11.5%, 12.0%, 5.2% vs. 12.6%, 12.6%, 2.2% in type A, B, and C, P = 0.61 ), and no bailout stenting was required. In 125 well-matched lesion pairs after propensity score analysis, the cumulative incidence of target lesion revascularization at 3 years was 4.5% vs. 7.0%, respectively ( P = 0.60 ). Late lumen loss (−0.00 mm vs. −0.01 mm, P = 0.94 ) and restenosis rates (7.4% vs. 7.1%, P = 1.0 ) were similar in both of the groups. Conclusion. The application of oversized DCB at low pressure is effective and feasible for preventing late restenosis comparative to the standard technique of DCB.

Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloon-only strategy (DEB-only) for de novo coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Many clinical trials have demonstrated the value of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) for in-stent restenosis. Recently, DEB for de novo lesions has also attracted more attention. There have been promising results of PCI using DEB alone in selected de novo coronary diseases (small vessels, bifurcating lesions, acute myocardial infarction). However, the application of DEB for patients with de novo coronary artery disease remains controversial due to relatively limited evidence. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety DEB-only strategy (bail-out stents were allowed when required) compared with other modalities for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases for randomized controlled trials as well as observational studies published up to Jan 22, 2020. Studies which compared DEB-only approach with other PCI strategies for treatment of any type of de novo coronary lesions were identified. The primary outcome was late lumen loss (LLL) during angiographic follow up. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and binary in-segment restenosis. Results Nineteen studies (eleven randomised controlled trials and eight observational studies) with a total of 3,356 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Angiographic observations were obtained at 6 or 9 months and clinical follow-up duration ranged from 6 months to 36 months. Among the overall studies, the results indicated that DEB-only strategy was superior to the control groups for LLL (mean difference (MD) = −0.30mm; 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.41 to −0.19; P&lt;0.001). DEBs were associated with a similar risk of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 0.84, 95% CI: 0.64, 1.11, P=0.22), TLR (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.16, P=0.23) and binary restenosis (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.35, 1.31, P=0.25) compared with the control groups. In subgroup analysis, DEB-only strategy showed significantly better outcomes for most endpoints compared to POBA. Compared with DES, there were also significant favorable effects associated with treatment of DEB-only on LLL (MD: −0.14, 95% CI: −0.23, −0.04, P=0.005), while insignificant inter-strategy differences were observed in other endpoints. Vessel diameter did not have a significant influence on the result. Conclusion DEB-only intervention is an effective treatment associated with a significant reduction in late loss late lumen loss compared to other options. The efficacy and safety of DEB alone are comparable to those of DES and superior to POBA for treatment of selected de novo coronary lesions. Additional evidence is still warranted to confirm value of DEB before a widespread clinical utilization can be recommended. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine