A drug-eluting Balloon for the trEatment of coronarY bifurcatiON lesions in the side branch: a prospective multicenter ranDomized (BEYOND) clinical trial in China.
Journal
Chinese medical journal
ISSN: 2542-5641
Titre abrégé: Chin Med J (Engl)
Pays: China
ID NLM: 7513795
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Apr 2020
20 Apr 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
9
4
2020
medline:
2
2
2021
entrez:
9
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions remains challenging; a simple strategy has been preferred as of late, but the disadvantage is ostium stenosis or even occlusion of the side branch (SB). Only a few single-center studies investigating the combination of a drug-eluting stent in the main branch followed by a drug-eluting balloon in the SB have been reported. This prospective, multicenter, randomized study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) compared with regular balloon angioplasty (BA) in the treatment of non-left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions. Between December 2014 and November 2015, a total of 222 consecutive patients with bifurcation lesions were enrolled in this study at ten Chinese centers. Patients were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to a PEB group (n = 113) and a BA group (n = 109). The primary efficacy endpoint was angiographic target lesion stenosis at 9 months. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints included target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, target lesion failure, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and thrombosis in target lesions. The main analyses performed in this clinical trial included case shedding analysis, base-value equilibrium analysis, effectiveness analysis, and safety analysis. SAS version 9.4 was used for the statistical analyses. At the 9-month angiographic follow-up, the difference in the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion stenosis between the PEB (28.7% ± 18.7%) and BA groups (40.0% ± 19.0%) was -11.3% (95% confidence interval: -16.3% to -6.3%, Psuperiority <0.0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis, and similar results were recorded in the per-protocol analysis, demonstrating the superiority of PEB to BA. Late lumen loss was significantly lower in the PEB group than in the BA group (-0.06 ± 0.32 vs. 0.18 ± 0.34 mm, P < 0.0001). For intention-to-treat, there were no significant differences between PEB and BA in the 9-month percentages of MACCEs (0.9% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.16) or non-fatal myocardial infarctions (0 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.49). There were no clinical events of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, target lesion failure, all-cause death, cardiac death or target lesion thrombosis in either group. In de novo non-left main coronary artery bifurcations treated with provisional T stenting, SB dilation with the PEB group demonstrated better angiographic results than treatment with regular BA at the 9-month follow-up in terms of reduced target lesion stenosis. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325817; https://clinicaltrials.gov.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions remains challenging; a simple strategy has been preferred as of late, but the disadvantage is ostium stenosis or even occlusion of the side branch (SB). Only a few single-center studies investigating the combination of a drug-eluting stent in the main branch followed by a drug-eluting balloon in the SB have been reported. This prospective, multicenter, randomized study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) compared with regular balloon angioplasty (BA) in the treatment of non-left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions.
METHODS
METHODS
Between December 2014 and November 2015, a total of 222 consecutive patients with bifurcation lesions were enrolled in this study at ten Chinese centers. Patients were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to a PEB group (n = 113) and a BA group (n = 109). The primary efficacy endpoint was angiographic target lesion stenosis at 9 months. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints included target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, target lesion failure, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and thrombosis in target lesions. The main analyses performed in this clinical trial included case shedding analysis, base-value equilibrium analysis, effectiveness analysis, and safety analysis. SAS version 9.4 was used for the statistical analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At the 9-month angiographic follow-up, the difference in the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion stenosis between the PEB (28.7% ± 18.7%) and BA groups (40.0% ± 19.0%) was -11.3% (95% confidence interval: -16.3% to -6.3%, Psuperiority <0.0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis, and similar results were recorded in the per-protocol analysis, demonstrating the superiority of PEB to BA. Late lumen loss was significantly lower in the PEB group than in the BA group (-0.06 ± 0.32 vs. 0.18 ± 0.34 mm, P < 0.0001). For intention-to-treat, there were no significant differences between PEB and BA in the 9-month percentages of MACCEs (0.9% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.16) or non-fatal myocardial infarctions (0 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.49). There were no clinical events of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, target lesion failure, all-cause death, cardiac death or target lesion thrombosis in either group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In de novo non-left main coronary artery bifurcations treated with provisional T stenting, SB dilation with the PEB group demonstrated better angiographic results than treatment with regular BA at the 9-month follow-up in terms of reduced target lesion stenosis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325817; https://clinicaltrials.gov.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32265425
doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000743
pmc: PMC7176447
pii: 00029330-202004200-00004
doi:
Substances chimiques
Paclitaxel
P88XT4IS4D
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02325817']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
899-908Références
Lassen JF, Holm NR, Stankovic G, Lefèvre T, Chieffo A, Hildick-Smith D, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: consensus from the first 10 years of the European Bifurcation Club meetings. EuroIntervention 2014; 10:545–560. doi: 10.4244/EIJV10I5A97.
doi: 10.4244/eijv10i5a97
Banning AP, Lassen JF, Burzotta F, Lefèvre T, Darremont O, Hildick-Smith D, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for obstructive bifurcation lesions: the 14th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention 2019; 15:90–98. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00144.
doi: 10.4244/eij-d-19-00144
Chen SL, Santoso T, Zhang JJ, Ye F, Xu YW, Fu Q, et al. Clinical outcome of double kissing crush versus provisional stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: The 5-year follow-up results from a randomized and multicenter DKCRUSH-II study (randomized study on double kissing crush technique versus provisional stenting technique for coronary artery bifurcation lesions). Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10:e004497doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004497.
doi: 10.1161/circinterventions.116.004497
Colombo A, Bramucci E, Saccà S, Violini R, Lettieri C, Zanini R, et al. Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations: the CACTUS (coronary bifurcations: application of the crushing technique using sirolimus-eluting stents) study. Circulation 2009; 119:71–78. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.808402.
doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.108.808402
Colombo A, Moses JW, Morice MC, Ludwig J, Holmes DR Jr, et al. Randomized study to evaluate sirolimus-eluting stents implanted at coronary bifurcation lesions. Circulation 2004; 109:1244–1249. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000118474.71662.E3.
doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000118474.71662.e3
Ferenc M, Ayoub M, Büttner HJ, Gick M, Comberg T, Rothe J, et al. Long-term outcomes of routine versus provisional T-stenting for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions: five-year results of the Bifurcations Bad Krozingen I study. EuroIntervention 2015; 11:856–859. doi: 10.4244/EIJV11I8A175.
doi: 10.4244/eijv11i8a175
Bai J, Yue Y, Feng HQ, Hao SX, Peng L, Zhang M, et al. Impact of main vessel calcification on procedural and clinical outcomes of bifurcation lesion undergoing provisional single-stenting intervention: a multicenter, prospective, observational study. J Geriatr Cardiol 2019; 16:156–163. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2019.02.012.
doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2019.02.012
Katritsis DG, Siontis GC, Ioannidis JP. Double versus single stenting for coronary bifurcation lesions: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2:409–415. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.868091.
doi: 10.1161/circinterventions.109.868091
Zhang F, Dong L, Ge J. Simple versus complex stenting strategy for coronary artery bifurcation lesions in the drug-eluting stent era: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart 2009; 95:1676–1681. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2009.168641.
doi: 10.1136/hrt.2009.168641
Lv YH, Guo C, Li M, Zhang MB, Wang ZL. Modified double-stent strategy may be an optimal choice for coronary bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97:e13377doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013377.
doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000013377
Hakeem A, Khan FM, Bhatti S, Samad Z, Effat MA, Eckman MH, et al. Provisional vs. complex stenting strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Invasive Cardiol 2009; 21:589–595. doi: 10.1590/S0373-55241966000100005.
doi: 10.1590/s0373-55241966000100005
Speck U, Stolzenburg N, Peters D, Scheller B. How does a drug-coated balloon work? Overview about coating technologies and their impact. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2016; 57:3–11. doi: 10.2514/1.A32956.
doi: 10.2514/1.a32956
Scheller B, Speck U, Abramjuk C, Bernhardt U, Böhm M, Nickenig G. Paclitaxel balloon coating, a novel method for prevention and therapy of restenosis. Circulation 2004; 110:810–814. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000138929.71660.E0.
doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000138929.71660.e0
Gershlick AH. Treating atherosclerosis: local drug delivery from laboratory studies to clinical trials. Atherosclerosis 2002; 160:259–271. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9150(01)00618-9.
doi: 10.1016/s0021-9150(01)00618-9
Moses JW, Kipshidze N, Leon MB. Perspectives of drug-eluting stents: the next revolution. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2002; 2:163–172. doi: 10.2165/00129784-200202030-00004.
doi: 10.2165/00129784-200202030-00004
Wolinsky H, Lin CS. Use of the perforated balloon catheter to infuse marker substances into diseased coronary artery walls after experimental postmortem angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991; 17:174B–178B. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(91)90955-9.
doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(91)90955-9
Scheller B, Hehrlein C, Bocksch W, Rutsch W, Haghi D, Dietz U, et al. Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:2113–2124. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061254.
doi: 10.1056/nejmoa061254
Sarode K, Spelber DA, Bhatt DL, Mohammad A, Prasad A, Brilakis ES, et al. Drug delivering technology for endovascular management of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7:827–839. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.05.008.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.05.008
Cortese B, di Palma G, Latini RA, Elwany M, Orrego PS, Seregni RG. Immediate and short-term performance of a novel sirolimus-coated balloon during complex percutaneous coronary interventions. The FAtebenefratelli SIrolimus COated-balloon (FASICO) registry. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2017; 18:487–491. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2017.03.025.
doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2017.03.025
Chen YC, Lin FY, Cheng SM, Chang CC, Chuang CL, Lin RH, et al. Wide-angle coronary bifurcation stenotic lesions treated with one drug-eluting stent and sequential balloon technique: a better strategy? Heart Lung Circ 2020; 29:437–444. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2019.02.189.
doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2019.02.189
Mathey DG, Wendig I, Boxberger M, Bonaventura K, Kleber FX. Treatment of bifurcation lesions with a drug-eluting balloon: the PEPCAD V (paclitaxel eluting PTCA balloon in coronary artery disease) trial. EuroIntervention 2011; 7: (Suppl K): K61–K65. doi: 10.4244/EIJV7SKA11.
doi: 10.4244/eijv7ska11
Stella PR, Belkacemi A, Dubois C, Nathoe H, Dens J, Naber C, et al. A multicenter randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon plus bare-metal stent versus bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in bifurcation lesions treated with a single-stenting technique: six-month angiographic and 12-month clinical results of the drug-eluting balloon in bifurcations trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 80:1138–1146. doi: 10.1002/ccd.23499.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.23499
López Mínguez JR, Nogales Asensio JM, Doncel Vecino LJ, Sandoval J, Romany S, Martínez Romero P, et al. A prospective randomised study of the paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter in bifurcated coronary lesions (BABILON trial): 24-month clinical and angiographic results. EuroIntervention 2014; 10:50–57. doi: 10.4244/EIJV10I1A10.
doi: 10.4244/eijv10i1a10
Herrador JA, Fernandez JC, Guzman M, Aragon V. Drug-eluting vs. conventional balloon for side branch dilation in coronary bifurcations treated by provisional T stenting. J Interv Cardiol 2013; 26:454–462. doi: 10.1111/joic.12061.
doi: 10.1111/joic.12061
Berland J, Lefèvre T, Brenot P, Fajadet J, Motreff P, Guerin P, et al. DANUBIO - a new drug-eluting balloon for the treatment of side branches in bifurcation lesions: six-month angiographic follow-up results of the DEBSIDE trial. EuroIntervention 2015; 11:868–876. doi: 10.4244/EIJV11I8A177.
doi: 10.4244/eijv11i8a177
Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007; 115:2344–2351. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.685313.
doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.106.685313
Galassi AR, Tomasello SD, Capodanno D, Barrano G, Ussia GP, Tamburino C. Mini-crush versus T-provisional techniques in bifurcation lesions: clinical and angiographic long-term outcome after implantation of drug-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2:185–194. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.12.005.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.12.005
Xu B, Qian J, Ge J, Wang J, Chen F, Chen J, et al. Two-year results and subgroup analyses of the PEPCAD China in-stent restenosis trial: a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial for the treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 1:624–629. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26401.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.26401
Kleber FX, Mathey DG, Rittger H, Scheller B. German Drug-eluting Balloon Consensus Group. How to use the drug-eluting balloon: recommendations by the German consensus group. EuroIntervention 2011; 7: (Suppl K): K125–K128. doi: 10.4244/EIJV7SKA21.
doi: 10.4244/eijv7ska21
Kleber FX, Rittger H, Bonaventura K, Zeymer U, Wöhrle J, Jeger R, et al. Drug-coated balloons for treatment of coronary artery disease: updated recommendations from a consensus group. Clin Res Cardiol 2013; 102:785–797. doi: 10.1007/s00392-013-0609-7.
doi: 10.1007/s00392-013-0609-7