Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Balloons for In-Stent Restenosis: Large Cohort Analysis and Single-Center Clinical Experience.


Journal

The Canadian journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1916-7075
Titre abrégé: Can J Cardiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8510280

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 18 10 2023
revised: 17 12 2023
accepted: 29 12 2023
pubmed: 12 1 2024
medline: 12 1 2024
entrez: 11 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The use of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) remains clinically relevant in the contemporary era of drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary interventions (DES-PCI), especially in the setting of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Our goal was to assess the outcomes of ISR patients in a large prospective registry. A total of 2329 consecutive patients with ISR-PCI (675 using DEB and 1654 with DES) were treated in our medical centre from 2010 to 2021. Clinical end points included mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. Clinical outcomes were adjusted for multiple confounders. Mean ages (65.9 ± 11.0 vs 66.1 ± 10.5; P = 0.73) and percentages of female patients (16.6% vs 18.2%; P = 0.353) were similar between both ISR groups. Patients treated with DEB for ISR suffered more from diabetes, hypertension, and previous myocardial infarction (P < 0.01 for all) and presented more frequently with acute coronary syndrome (40.0% vs 34.4%; P = 0.01) compared with patients treated with DES for ISR. One-year MACE was significantly higher in the DEB ISR-PCI group (23.4% vs 19.6%; P = 0.002) compared to the DES ISR-PCI group, but no significant differences in mortality were observed at 1 year between the groups. After adjustment for multiple confounders, DEB ISR-PCI was not associated with increased MACE at 1 year (P = 0.55). In our large experience, patients treated with DEB for ISR-PCI have higher baseline risk and sustained increased MACE rates compared with DES ISR-PCI patients. After adjustment for confounding variables, clinical outcomes are similar between the groups at 1 year after PCI.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The use of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) remains clinically relevant in the contemporary era of drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary interventions (DES-PCI), especially in the setting of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Our goal was to assess the outcomes of ISR patients in a large prospective registry.
METHODS METHODS
A total of 2329 consecutive patients with ISR-PCI (675 using DEB and 1654 with DES) were treated in our medical centre from 2010 to 2021. Clinical end points included mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. Clinical outcomes were adjusted for multiple confounders.
RESULTS RESULTS
Mean ages (65.9 ± 11.0 vs 66.1 ± 10.5; P = 0.73) and percentages of female patients (16.6% vs 18.2%; P = 0.353) were similar between both ISR groups. Patients treated with DEB for ISR suffered more from diabetes, hypertension, and previous myocardial infarction (P < 0.01 for all) and presented more frequently with acute coronary syndrome (40.0% vs 34.4%; P = 0.01) compared with patients treated with DES for ISR. One-year MACE was significantly higher in the DEB ISR-PCI group (23.4% vs 19.6%; P = 0.002) compared to the DES ISR-PCI group, but no significant differences in mortality were observed at 1 year between the groups. After adjustment for multiple confounders, DEB ISR-PCI was not associated with increased MACE at 1 year (P = 0.55).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In our large experience, patients treated with DEB for ISR-PCI have higher baseline risk and sustained increased MACE rates compared with DES ISR-PCI patients. After adjustment for confounding variables, clinical outcomes are similar between the groups at 1 year after PCI.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38211886
pii: S0828-282X(24)00011-4
doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2023.12.033
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Mark Kheifets (M)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Electronic address: markhe@clalit.org.il.

Ori Rahat (O)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Tamir Bental (T)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Amos Levi (A)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Hana Vaknin-Assa (H)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Gabriel Greenberg (G)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Pablo Codner (P)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Guy Witberg (G)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Ran Kornowski (R)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Leor Perl (L)

Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel; Beilinson and Hasharon Hospitals, The Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Classifications MeSH