Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in Pulmonary Vein Stenosis or Total Occlusion.
drug-coated balloon
pulmonary vein angioplasty
pulmonary vein occlusion
pulmonary vein stenosis
pulmonary vein stenting
Journal
JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
ISSN: 2405-5018
Titre abrégé: JACC Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101656995
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jun 2024
03 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
03
01
2024
revised:
09
04
2024
accepted:
10
04
2024
medline:
21
6
2024
pubmed:
21
6
2024
entrez:
21
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Current therapies for pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS) or pulmonary vein total occlusion (PVTO) involving angioplasty and stenting are hindered by high rates of restenosis. This study compares a novel approach of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and stenting with the current standard of care in PVS or PVTO due to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). A retrospective single-center study analyzed patients with PVS or PVTO due to PVI who underwent either angioplasty and stenting (NoDCB group; December 2012-December 2016) or DCB angioplasty and stenting (DCB group; January 2018-January 2021). Multivariable Andersen-Gill regression analysis assessed the risk of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The NoDCB group comprised 58 patients and 89 veins, with a longer median follow-up of 35 months, whereas the DCB group included 26 patients and 33 veins, with a median follow-up of 11 months. The DCB group exhibited more PVTO (NoDCB: 12.3%; DCB: 42.4%; P = 0.0001), with a smaller reference vessel size (NoDCB: 10.2 mm; DCB: 8.4 mm; P = 0.0004). Follow-up computed tomography was performed in 82% of NoDCB and 85% of DCB, revealing lower unadjusted rates of restenosis (NoDCB: 26%; DCB: 14.3%) and TLR (NoDCB: 34.2%; DCB: 10.7%) in the DCB group. DCB use was associated with a significantly lower risk of restenosis and TLR (HR: 0.003: CI: 0.00009-0.118; P = 0.002). The novel approach of DCB angioplasty followed by stenting is effective and safe and significantly reduces the risk of restenosis and reintervention compared with the standard of care in PVS or PVTO due to PVI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Current therapies for pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS) or pulmonary vein total occlusion (PVTO) involving angioplasty and stenting are hindered by high rates of restenosis.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This study compares a novel approach of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and stenting with the current standard of care in PVS or PVTO due to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI).
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective single-center study analyzed patients with PVS or PVTO due to PVI who underwent either angioplasty and stenting (NoDCB group; December 2012-December 2016) or DCB angioplasty and stenting (DCB group; January 2018-January 2021). Multivariable Andersen-Gill regression analysis assessed the risk of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The NoDCB group comprised 58 patients and 89 veins, with a longer median follow-up of 35 months, whereas the DCB group included 26 patients and 33 veins, with a median follow-up of 11 months. The DCB group exhibited more PVTO (NoDCB: 12.3%; DCB: 42.4%; P = 0.0001), with a smaller reference vessel size (NoDCB: 10.2 mm; DCB: 8.4 mm; P = 0.0004). Follow-up computed tomography was performed in 82% of NoDCB and 85% of DCB, revealing lower unadjusted rates of restenosis (NoDCB: 26%; DCB: 14.3%) and TLR (NoDCB: 34.2%; DCB: 10.7%) in the DCB group. DCB use was associated with a significantly lower risk of restenosis and TLR (HR: 0.003: CI: 0.00009-0.118; P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The novel approach of DCB angioplasty followed by stenting is effective and safe and significantly reduces the risk of restenosis and reintervention compared with the standard of care in PVS or PVTO due to PVI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38904577
pii: S2405-500X(24)00341-4
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2024.04.020
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Ghobrial is a consultant for congenital therapies for Edwards LifeSciences, Medtronic, and Gore. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.