A retrospective study from a single center to compare outcomes in 79 patients with in-stent restenosis treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty or drug-eluting stent implantation.
Coronary restenosis
Drug-coated balloon
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Journal
The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 2090-911X
Titre abrégé: Egypt Heart J
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9106952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jan 2023
31 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
21
11
2022
accepted:
11
01
2023
entrez:
31
1
2023
pubmed:
1
2
2023
medline:
1
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite the recent progress made in drug-eluting stents (DESs), in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still a common complication of percutaneous coronary interventions. This retrospective study from a single center aimed to compare outcomes in 79 patients with ISR treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty or DES implantation. From January 2017 to December 2021, 83 ISR lesions from 79 patients were included. Thirty-two were treated with PCB and 51 treated with available DES in the catheterization laboratory. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Mean time between index angioplasty and restenosis was 27 months with a minimum of 4 months and a maximum of 70 months. Concerning Mehran ISR angiographic classification, classes II and III were more likely treated with DES. Stenosis diameter and minimal lumen diameter (MLD) were similar in both groups. PCB used was significantly shorter than DES: Mean length was 19.75 ± 5.7 versus 22.1 ± 16.5 (p < 0.001), respectively. Angiographic results immediately after intervention were similar in both groups: In-segment MLD after the procedure was 2.5 ± 0.4 in the DES group and 2.26 ± 0.55 in the PCB group. A median follow-up of 20 months was achieved for 68 patients, and 11 were lost to follow-up. There was also no difference in both groups regarding free from events survival. The findings from this study support recent international studies that have shown no significant differences between DES and PCB and in-stent restenosis. This suggests that PCB use is an option to consider in our local daily practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite the recent progress made in drug-eluting stents (DESs), in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still a common complication of percutaneous coronary interventions. This retrospective study from a single center aimed to compare outcomes in 79 patients with ISR treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty or DES implantation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From January 2017 to December 2021, 83 ISR lesions from 79 patients were included. Thirty-two were treated with PCB and 51 treated with available DES in the catheterization laboratory. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Mean time between index angioplasty and restenosis was 27 months with a minimum of 4 months and a maximum of 70 months. Concerning Mehran ISR angiographic classification, classes II and III were more likely treated with DES. Stenosis diameter and minimal lumen diameter (MLD) were similar in both groups. PCB used was significantly shorter than DES: Mean length was 19.75 ± 5.7 versus 22.1 ± 16.5 (p < 0.001), respectively. Angiographic results immediately after intervention were similar in both groups: In-segment MLD after the procedure was 2.5 ± 0.4 in the DES group and 2.26 ± 0.55 in the PCB group. A median follow-up of 20 months was achieved for 68 patients, and 11 were lost to follow-up. There was also no difference in both groups regarding free from events survival.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this study support recent international studies that have shown no significant differences between DES and PCB and in-stent restenosis. This suggests that PCB use is an option to consider in our local daily practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36720763
doi: 10.1186/s43044-023-00330-z
pii: 10.1186/s43044-023-00330-z
pmc: PMC9889577
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
8Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jul 7;66(1):23-33
pubmed: 26139054
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Feb 23;67(7):751-62
pubmed: 26892409
Lancet. 2015 Aug 15;386(9994):655-64
pubmed: 26334160
J Thorac Dis. 2016 Oct;8(10):E1150-E1162
pubmed: 27867580
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 2;75(21):2664-2678
pubmed: 32466881
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Mar 15;57(11):1314-22
pubmed: 21376502
Eur Heart J. 2020 Oct 7;41(38):3715-3728
pubmed: 31511862
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Mar;8(3):382-394
pubmed: 25703886
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Aug 17;8(9):1157-1165
pubmed: 26210806
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jun 22;13(12):1391-1402
pubmed: 32473887
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Oct;88(4):522-528
pubmed: 26715370
Circulation. 1999 Nov 2;100(18):1872-8
pubmed: 10545431
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):87-165
pubmed: 30165437
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Jul 4;48(1):193-202
pubmed: 16814667
BMJ. 2015 Nov 04;351:h5392
pubmed: 26537292
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018 Oct 22;20(12):140
pubmed: 30350271
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Apr 15;63(14):1378-86
pubmed: 24412457
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Feb 12;11(3):275-283
pubmed: 29413242