Safety and Long-Term Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty following Rotational Atherectomy for Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions Compared with New Generation Drug-Eluting Stents.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the safety and long-term efficacy of drug-coated balloons (DCB) following aggressive intracoronary image-guided rotational atherectomy (iRA) for severe coronary artery calcification (CAC), and to compare this strategy with new generation drug-eluting stents (nDES) following iRA. BACKGROUND: Ischemic events following the treatment of CAC is still relatively high. Thus, more innovative strategies are required. METHODS: We evaluated 123 consecutive patients (166 lesions) with de novo CAC undergoing an iRA (burr size; 0.7 of the mean reference diameter by intracoronary imaging) followed by DCB (DCB-iRA; 54 patients, 68 lesions) or nDES (nDES-iRA; 69 patients, 98 lesions). Follow-up angiography was obtained at > 6 months. RESULTS: The target vessels (right coronary and circumflex), bifurcation (67.6% versus 47.9%), reference diameter (2.28mm versus 2.49mm), and lesion length (11.89mm versus 18.78mm) were significantly different between the two groups. The median follow-up was 732 days. TLR and TVR in DCB-iRA and nDES-iRA at 3 years were similar: 15.6% versus 16.3% (P=0.99) and 15.6% versus 23.3% (P=0.38). In 41 well-matched lesion pairs after propensity score analysis, the cumulative incidence of TLR and TVR in DCB-iRA and nDES-iRA at 3 years was 12.9% versus 16.3% (P=0.70) and 12.9% versus 26.1% (P=0.17), respectively. On QCA analysis, although the acute gain was smaller in DCB-iRA (0.85 mm versus 1.53 mm, P<0.001), the minimum lumen diameter at follow-up was similar (1.69 mm versus 1.87 mm, P=0.29). The late lumen loss was lower (0.09 mm versus 0.52 mm, P=0.009) in DCB-iRA. CONCLUSIONS: DCB-iRA is feasible for CAC.

Outcomes after drug-coated balloon treatment for patients with calcified coronary lesions.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) for calcified coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Calcified coronary lesions is associated with poor clinical outcomes after revascularization. Recently, DCB is emerging as an alternative strategy for de novo coronary lesions. However, reports describing the efficacy of DCB for calcified coronary lesions are limited. METHODS: A total of 81 patients (96 lesions) who electively underwent DCB treatment for de novo coronary lesions were enrolled: 46 patients (55 lesions) in the calcified group and 35 patients (41 lesions) in the non-calcified group. Angiographic follow-up data and clinical outcomes after the procedure were evaluated. RESULTS: The diameter of the DCB used was 2.5 ± 0.5 mm. No bail-out stenting was observed after DCB treatment. Rotational atherectomy was used in 82% of lesions in the calcified group. Follow-up angiography (median, 6.5 months after intervention) was performed for 59 patients (30 in the calcified group and 29 in the non-calcified group). Late lumen loss and rates of restenosis were comparable between the groups (0.03 mm in the calcified group vs -0.18 mm in the non-calcified group, P = 0.093 and 13.9% vs 3.03%, P = 0.095, respectively). The survival rates for target lesion revascularization free survival and major adverse cardiac events at 2 years were comparable between the groups (85.3% vs 93.4%, P = 0.64 and 81.4% vs 88.5%, P = 0.57, respectively). CONCLUSION: Calcified coronary lesions might dilute the effect of DCB. However, clinical outcomes in the calcified group were similar to those in the non-calcified group.