Multimodality imaging results of TAP versus novel modified TAP stenting in coronary bifurcation: From bench testing to first-in-man investigation.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the results of T and small protrusion (TAP) versus a novel modification of TAP (mTAP) stenting by multimodality imaging in bench testing and in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL). BACKGROUND: TAP stenting is a suboptimal technique for bailout side branch (SB) stenting. METHODS: In a bench model, optical coherence tomography (OCT), microscopic examinations (ME), and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) were performed after TAP and mTAP stenting. In 20 patients with CBL, 80 intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examinations were performed during mTAP stenting in which the SB stent was pulled-back to indent the inflated main vessel (MV) balloon and deployed while deflating it. For TAP stenting, the tip of the SB stent was positioned in the MV and deployed. RESULTS: In bench testing, OCT showed neocarina length (NL) was shorter and minimum stent area (MSA) was larger after mTAP versus TAP stenting (2.84 ± 0.70 vs. 4.80 ± 020 mm; 6.75 ± 1.50 vs. 4.5 ± 2.2 mm2 ; respectively; p < 0.05). By ME, NL was shorter and shear rate trended lower after mTAP versus TAP stenting. In patients, IVUS showed MSA was larger after versus before mTAP stenting (6.32 ± 0.58 vs. 5.21 ± 0.56 mm2 ; p < 0.01); NL was 1.43 ± 0.22 mm with SB ostium coverage. The Seattle Angina questionnaire (SAQ) score was higher at 6 months versus baseline (85 ± 4.0 vs. 48 ± 6.0, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This multimodality imaging study showed, for the first time, mTAP stenting resulted in larger stent area and shorter neocarina than TAP stenting in bench testing. In patients with CBL, mTAP stenting led to larger stent area, short neocarina with complete SB ostium coverage, and improved the SAQ score at follow-up.

T and Small Protrusion (TAP) vs Double-Kissing Crush Technique: Insights From In Vitro Models.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary interventions on complex bifurcation lesions may require implantation of two stents to appropriately treat diffuse side-branch (SB) disease. Comparisons among different bifurcation stenting techniques are continuously attempted by various study designs (bench tests, computer simulations, clinical studies). Among different techniques, double kissing crush (DKC) represents the last evolution for "crushing" while T and small Protrusion (TAP) represents the evolution of "T stenting". Both techniques are actually gaining popularity, but head-to-head comparisons are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two last generation drug-eluting stents (Synergy™, Boston Scientific, MA, USA and Ultimaster™,Terumo Corp., Japan) were implanted in left main bifurcation bench models using TAP (n = 6 sets) and DKC (n = 6 sets) techniques. A peristaltic pump with fresh porcine blood was used to perfuse the blood through the silicone model at a flow rate of 200 ml/min for 4 min. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was used to assess stent struts geometry and thrombus formation. SB cross sectional area as well as SB obstruction did not significantly differ between the two techniques. Numerical (but not statistically significant) differences were found in terms of malapposed struts (fewer with TAP) and floating struts (fewer with DKC). Thrombus formation after blood perfusion was similar between TAP and DKC technique (1.53 ± 1.12 vs. 1.20 ± 1.01 mm2, p = 0.6). CONCLUSION: The result of the present in-vitro study shows the absence of significant difference between TAP and DKC in terms of stent struts apposition and acute thrombus formation potential. Despite the completely different technical steps required, both techniques have similar performance according to such articulated pre-clinical evaluation. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT?: Due to its limited complexity, T and Protrusion (TAP) technique is considered the to-go technique for bifurcation lesions with good long-term results. Recently, double kissing crush (DKC) technique has been gaining popularity and demonstrated promising results in randomized clinical trials. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: This in-vitro bench test study provides a unique detailed OCT comparison and local hemodynamic environment analysis of the two techniques. HOW MIGHT THIS IMPACT ON CLINICAL PRACTICE?: New insights of acute thrombogenicity and computational flow model simulation may guide percutaneous therapeutic strategies of bifurcation lesions.

Drug-coated balloons: Technical and clinical progress.

The advancement of drug-coated balloons (DCB) presents an alternative nonstent method in the percutaneous treatment of atherosclerotic lesions. While the current generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are the device of choice, especially in coronary artery disease (CAD), DCB has potential applications in the treatment of de novo lesions, in-stent restenosis (ISR), bifurcations, and in peripheral artery disease (PAD). In terms of coronary clinical experience, DCB is used most in ISR scenarios and more data are collected to support the use of DCB in de novo lesions compared to best-in-class DES. The use of DCB in bifurcation side branch treatment has demonstrated safety, and with good angiographic and clinical outcomes, but more data from randomized trials will be required to assess its clinical value. For PAD, the clinical outcomes of DCB with and without debulking devices in diseased femoropopliteal arteries and treatment of below-the-knee (BTK) vessels with DCB are discussed. Current data demonstrated conflicting long-term safety outcomes in the use of paclitaxel devices in the femoral and/or popliteal arteries, while the role of DCB in BTK disease remains uncertain due to a lack of randomized controlled trial data. In summary, this review provides an overall view of current DCB technologies and progress, followed by an update on DCB clinical data in the treatment of CAD and PAD.

Drug-Coated Balloons: Technologies and Clinical Applications.

The progress and development of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) represents an emerging alternative treatment in peripheral and coronary artery diseases, particularly when a non-stent approach is necessary. Several studies and meta-analyses have evaluated the clinical outcomes of DCBs in different lesions and this review aims to compile the progress and updated clinical data of DCB strategy in both peripheral artery diseases (PAD) and coronary artery diseases (CAD). The review highlights that clinical data has encouraged the use of DCB for applications in PAD and in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). The employment of DCB in side branch treatment of bifurcation lesions has been reported to be feasible and safe, with good angiographic and clinical outcome. The use of DCB for arteriovenous fistula and grafts stenoses is a promising strategy, but more clinical data is required to draw reliable conclusions. The limitations and impact of the current generation of DCBs will be discussed and the clinical development of newer generation of the device is also covered in this review.

Materials technology in drug eluting balloons: Current and future perspectives.

The coating material technology is important for the delivery of anti-proliferative drugs from the surface of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs), which are emerging as alternatives to drug-eluting stents (DES) in the field of interventional cardiology. Currently, several shortcomings limit their competition with DES, including low drug transfer efficiency to the arterial tissues and undesirable particulate generation from the coating matrix. In this review, we provide a survey of the materials used in existing DEBs, and discussed the mechanisms of actions of both the drugs and coating materials. The type of drug and the influence of the coating material characteristics on the drug uptake, distribution and retention in arterial tissues are described. We also summarize the novel coating excipients under development and provide our perspective on the possible use of nano-scale carriers to address the shortcomings of current coating technology. The scope of this review includes only materials that have been approved for biomedical applications or are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for drug delivery.