Stenting and Adjunctive Delivery of Paclitaxel Via Balloon Coating Versus Durable Polymeric Matrix for De Novo Coronary Lesions: Clinical and Angiographic Results from the Prospective Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is limited comparative clinical data regarding the safety and efficacy profile of paclitaxel delivery via balloon versus stent-polymer matrix. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic results of two different methods of paclitaxel delivery among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for single de novo coronary lesions. METHODS: A total of 202 patients undergoing PCI due to symptomatic heart disease and at least one significant coronary artery lesion were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter non-inferiority trial. Eligible patients were randomized to a revascularization with either a paclitaxel eluting stent (PES = Coroflex Please, B.Braun) or a bare metal stent (BMS) followed by a paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) dilation (BMS = Coroflex + PCB = Sequent Please, B.Braun). Clinical follow-up was obtained at 9 months in all patients, whereas angiographic in a subset of 94 (46.5%) patients. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. At 9 months, the primary endpoint of in-stent late lumen loss in BMS + PCB was comparable and non-inferior to PES (0.21 ± 0.5 vs. 0.30 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. P(non-inf) < 0.05). At 9 months, the incidence of MACE (7.0 vs. 6.9%, HR = 1, 95%CI: 0.3-2.8; P = 0.99), comprising the occurrence of myocardial infarction (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.62, 95%CI: 0.4-6.5; P = 0.32), target lesion revascularization (6.9 vs. 5.0%, HR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.4-4.4; p = 0.54) and stent thrombosis (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 2.01, 95%CI: 0.5-7.4; P = 0.74) was comparable between BMS + PCB and PES, respectively. In the BMS + PCB group, thrombosis tended to occur within 30 days (3.9 vs. 1.0%; P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel delivery via drug coated balloon or polymer-stent matrix achieved comparable angiographic and clinical results among patients with de novo coronary lesions. BMS + PCB revascularization was associated with a higher rate of stent thrombosis when compared to newer generation drug eluting stents, therefore, should be recommended as a bail-out for PCB alone angioplasty.

Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter versus paclitaxel-coated stent for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of in-stent restenosis with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter as compared with plain balloon angioplasty has shown surprisingly low late lumen loss at 6 months and fewer major adverse cardiac events up to 2 years. We compared the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent as the current standard of care. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients with coronary in-stent restenosis were randomly assigned to treatment by a paclitaxel-coated balloon (3 microg/mm2) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent. The main inclusion criteria encompassed diameter stenosis of > or =70% and < or =22 mm in length, with a vessel diameter of 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The primary end point was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. At 6 months follow-up, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.38+/-0.61 mm in the drug-eluting stent group versus 0.17+/-0.42 mm (P=0.03) in the drug-coated balloon group, resulting in a binary restenosis rate of 12 of 59 (20%) versus 4 of 57 (7%; P=0.06). At 12 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events were 22% and 9%, respectively (P=0.08). This difference was primarily due to the need for target lesion revascularization in 4 patients (6%) in the coated-balloon group, compared with 10 patients (15%) in the stent group (P=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with the paclitaxel-coated balloon was at least as efficacious and as well tolerated as the paclitaxel-eluting stent. For the treatment of in-stent restenosis, inhibition of re-restenosis does not require a second stent implantation.

The paclitaxel-eluting coroflex stent study II (PECOPS II) acute and 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-up, 1-year clinical follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Paclitaxel-coated stents have proven their efficacy for reducing restenosis in de novo coronary artery lesions and in-stent restenoses with superiority compared to bare metal stents. This study was performed to evaluate the procedural and 1 year results of the Paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent in coronary artery lesions. METHODS: One-hundred and twenty-nine patients (66.2 +/- 8.2 years, 31.0% diabetics, 20.2% unstable angina, 41.8% multivessel disease) were enrolled per protocol for elective single stent deployment into native de novo or post-PTCA restenotic coronary lesions.The mean reference diameter was 2.84 +/- 0.43 mm, the lesion length 12.51 +/- 4.6 mm, and the minimal lumen diameter 0.75 +/- 0.29 mm. Follow-up was performed clinically in 129/129 (100%) after 6 and 12 months and angiographically in 120/129 (93%) patients after 6 months. RESULTS: The success rates of the procedure and deployment were 100% and 95.3%, respectively. The in-stent late loss and the late-loss index were 0.27 +/- 0.59 mm and 0.17 +/- 0.40 resulting in binary in-stent restenoses in 16/120 (13.3%) subjects and in-segment restenoses in 20/120 (16.7%) subjects. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 23/129 (17.8%) during the first 6 months of follow-up with 3/129 (2.3%) myocardial infarctions, 1/129 (0.8%) secondary to stent thrombosis. From 6 to 12 months, 2/129 (1.6%) nonlesion related PCI were performed. CONCLUSION: The data of the Paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent evaluated in PECOPS II are within the range of the other currently available Paclitaxel-eluting stent.

The paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent study (PECOPS I): the 3-year clinical follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of drug-eluting devices in humans should include longterm follow-up owing to risk of late target vessel thrombosis with the possible fatal sequel. METHODS AND RESULTS: Therefore, the three-year clinical outcome of the paclitaxel-eluting Corofiex Please stent in patients with de-novo coronary lesions was evaluated in the single-arm PECOPS I pilot study. The clinical data of 123/125 (98.4%) of all patients included were available 3.05 +/- 0.12 years following stent deployment. In the intention-to-treat analysis the incidence of cardiac death was 9/123 (7.3%), of myocardial infarction 4/123 (3.3%), and of in-segment target lesion revascularization 14/123 (11.4%). Target lesion revascularizations tended (p = 0.30) to occur less frequently (9/96 (16.6%)) in those patients in whom the stent length was longer than the lesion (4.80 +/- 2.71 mm) compared to 5/27 (18.5%) in those patients in whom the stent was shorter than the lesion (-3.0 +/- 2.43 mm). Stent thromboses occurred in 2/123 (1.6%) patients during the first 6 months, one of which two days after premature discontinuation of clopidogrel. The total 3-year MACE rate was 22/123 (17.9%). CONCLUSION: The present study describes the paclitaxel-eluting Corotlex Please stent as a safe device with good long term performance when deployed in native coronary arteries. The occurrence of late major adverse events and late thromboses in particular seem to be very low.

Efficacy and Safety of Polymer-Free Ultrathin Strut Sirolimus-Probucol Coated Drug-Eluting Stents for Chronic Total Occlusions: Insights from the Coroflex ISAR 2000 Worldwide Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Coronary revascularization in chronic total occlusion (CTO) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. The choice of the coronary stent is crucial in maintaining long-term vessel patency after CTO revascularization. We investigated the efficacy and safety of polymer-free ultrathin strut sirolimus-probucol coated drug-eluting stents (PF-SES) for CTO lesions. METHODS: Patients with CTO lesions treated with PF-SES were identified from the prospective multicenter international ISAR 2000 registry. The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 9 months. Secondary endpoints were 9-month major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or TLR) (MACE) and the occurrence of stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients with CTO lesions (n=127) were available for analysis. The 9-month clinical follow-up rate was 91%. The mean reference vessel diameter and lesion length were 2.76 mm ± 0.40 and 26.8 mm ± 13.1, respectively. The overall DAPT duration was 9.7 ± 2.8 months. Only one (1%) in-hospital MI was reported. The TLR and MACE rates at 9 months were 2% (2/101) and 5.9% (6/101), respectively. The 9-month accumulated rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis was 0% (0/101). CONCLUSION: Revascularizations for CTO with PF-SES are associated with low rates of TLR and MACE at 9 months with no stent thrombosis. These initial findings need to be compared with results of other new generation DES of larger studies.

Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents in a large-scale all-comers population.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free sirolimus coated, ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent (PF-SES) in an unselected patient population with a focus on acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Furthermore, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) with short (≤6 months) versus long (>6 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were also studied. METHODS: Patients who received PF-SES were investigated in an unselected large-scale international, single-armed, multicenter, 'all comers' observational study. The primary endpoint was the 9-month target lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate, whereas secondary endpoints included the 9-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and procedural success rates. A priori defined subgroups such as patients with ACS, diabetes, lesion subsets and procedural characteristics relative to DAPT were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 2877 patients of whom 1084 had ACS were treated with PF-SES (1.31±0.75 stents per patient). At 9 months, the accumulated overall TLR rate was 2.3% (58/2513). There was no significant difference between ACS and stable CAD (2.6% vs 2.1%, p=0.389). However, the overall MACE rate was 4.3% (108/2513) with a higher rate in patients with ACS when compared with the stable CAD subgroup (6.1%, 58/947 vs 3.2%, 50/1566, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PF-SES angioplasty is safe and effective in the daily clinical routine with low rates of TLR and MACE in an unselected patient population. Our data are in agreement with prior clinical findings that extended DAPT duration beyond 6 months do not improve clinical outcomes in patients with stable CAD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02629575). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02629575.

The use of paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) in acute coronary syndrome of small vessel de novo lesions: an analysis of a prospective 'real world' registry.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty in small vessel de novo lesions has favourable outcome and appears to be an alternative to stent implantation. However there is limitted data on its use specifically in small vessel acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: We analyse patients data from the SeQuent Please Small Vessel 'PCB only' Registry. It was an international, prospective, multicentre registry which enrolled patients with de novo lesions of small vessel diameter (≥2.0, ≤2.75 mm). Patients were divided into the ACS group and the non-ACS group and comparison made between the two groups. The primary end-point was clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 9 months. Secondary end-points were acute technical success, 30-day and 9-month major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction or TLR) (MACE) and the occurence of definite lesion and vessel thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 447 patients were enrolled for this registry of which 105 (23.5 %) patients were ACS (STEMI and NSTEMI). The procedural success rate was 98.1 % in ACS group. The mean vessel diameter for the ACS and non-ACS group were 2.15 ± 0.36 and 2.14 ± 0.35 respectively. Similar mean lesion length of around 15.5 mm was recorded in both groups. Additional stenting was required in 9.3 % ACS and 6.5 % non-ACS, p = 0.308. Reasons for additional stenting were target lesion related dissection (57.6 %) or non-target lesion stenosis (41.2 %). More than half of the patients had 4 weeks of aspirin/clopidogrel (57.1 % ACS, 60.5 % non-ACS). No significant difference between the ACS and non-ACS groups with regards to the duration and types of DAPT during follow up. At 30-day, MACE rate were (0 % ACS vs 0.3 % non-ACS, p = 0.599). At 9 months TLR rates were (1.2 % ACS vs 4.3 % non-ACS, p = 0.180) and MACE rates (3.6 % ACS vs 5.0 % non-ACS, p = 0.601). CONCLUSION: PCB in ACS with small vessel de novo lesions has low 30-day and 9-month TLR/MACE rates comparable to non-ACS small vessels. Thus it appears to be an alternative to stent implantation in the treatment ACS.

Drug eluting balloons as stand alone procedure for coronary bifurcational lesions: results of the randomized multicenter PEPCAD-BIF trial.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to investigate the benefit of distal main or side branch treatment with a DCB compared to POBA in coronary bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND: The standard treatment of bifurcation lesions is application of a DES to the main branch with provisional side branch stenting. While this resulted in considerable improvement in overall MACE rate suboptimal side branch results remained a problem. METHODS: The study was performed from 2011 to 2013 in six German centers. Native bifurcation lesions were included if side branch vessel diameter was ≥2 and ≤3.5 mm and no proximal main branch lesions was found. After successful predilatation randomization was performed to either DCB application or no further treatment. Follow-up angiograms for QCA analysis were done after 9 months. Primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL). RESULTS: 64 patients were successfully randomized. Minimal lumen diameter and grade of stenosis were equal in both groups. Only five stents were used as bail out. Angiographic follow-up was achieved in 75 % of patients. No patient died. There was one NSTEMI in the POBA group. Restenosis rate was 6 % in the DCB group vs 26 % in the POBA group (p = 0.045). TLR was necessary in one patient of the DCB group vs three patients of the POBA. The primary endpoint LLL was 0.13 mm in the DCB vs 0.51 mm in the POBA group (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: In bifurcation lesions that show only class A or B dissection and recoil not beyond 30 % the use of DCBs is a sound strategy.

The outcomes of patients with very small coronary artery disease treated with thin strut cobalt chromium bare metal stents: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in coronary artery disease (CAD) with very small vessel diameters remains controversial and challenging. These lesions are usually more diffuse, calcified and tortuous. The usage of thin strut bare metal stents (BMS) with excellent crossing profiles in a very small caliber coronary lesions has increased the likelihood of procedural success. OBJECTIVES: This observational study assessed the 9-month clinical outcomes in an 'all-comers' population with very small caliber CAD after implantation of thin strut cobalt chromium BMS. METHODS: Thin strut cobalt chromium BMS implantation in a priori pre-defined subgroups was investigated in a non-randomized, international, multi-center 'all-comers' observational study. Primary end-point was the 9-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate. Secondary end-points included the 9-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and procedural success rates. Data collection was done using an established electronic data acquisition form with built-in plausibility checks. RESULTS: A total of 783 patients with a mean age of 70.4 ± 12.8 years were enrolled, 205 (26.2 %) of them had vessel diameters of 2.5 mm and smaller which was defined as CAD with very small reference vessel calibers. Older age and diabetics were associated with higher incidences of very small caliber vessels. The mean reference vessel diameter in the very small vessel group was 2.05 ± 0.27 mm and mean diameter for vessels >2.5 mm was 3.41 ± 0.55 mm. Pre-dilatation was performed more often in the very small vessel patients (52.2 vs. 42.2 %; p value 0.007). There was no difference in the overall technical success rates in very small vessel disease group (97.9 vs. 97.7 %). The 9-month TLR rate was 6.3 % for the very small vessels and 3.7 % for vessels >2.5 mm (p = 0.129). The 9-month and in-hospital MACE rates in the very small vessel group and patient with vessel diameters >2.5 mm were not significantly different (13.1 vs. 9.2 %; p = 0.1265 and 5.2 vs. 3.7 %; p = 0.349) respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that the use of thin strut cobalt chromium BMS in very small vessel CAD was reasonably safe and efficacious in the context of 'real-world' practice.

Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter versus paclitaxel-coated stent for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: the three-year results of the PEPCAD II ISR study.

AIMS: Treatment of bare metal in-stent restenosis with the paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter based on the PACCOCATH® technology has yielded superior six-month angiographic and one-year clinical results compared to a paclitaxel-eluting stent. The three-year clinical follow-up is presented. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-one patients with coronary bare metal in-stent restenosis (>70%, length: <22 mm, vessel diameter: 2.5-3.5 mm) were randomly treated with the paclitaxel-coated balloon (DCB) (3 µg/mm²) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (DES). Clinical follow-up information was requested from the patients and from their physicians. Quantitative angiographic and demographic baseline data were statistically not different between the groups. Per intention-to-treat analysis at 12 months, the lesion-related rates of major adverse cardiac events were 7.6% and 16.9% (p=0.11) while at 36 months the respective numbers were 9.1% and 18.5% (p=0.14). These differences were primarily due to reduced target lesion revascularisation (TLR) in DCB 4/66 (6.2%) compared to DES patients 10/65 (15.4%) (p=0.10). From 12 to 36 months, 1/65 (1.5%) DCB patients experienced a myocardial infarction while neither TLR nor death occurred in any study patient in either group during that period. CONCLUSIONS: The six-month superiority of the paclitaxel-coated balloon compared to the paclitaxel-eluting stent in the treatment of bare metal coronary in-stent restenosis persisted throughout the three-year clinical follow-up period indicating stability of the lesions treated. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00393315).

Treatment of small coronary arteries with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter in the PEPCAD I study: are lesions clinically stable from 12 to 36 months?

AIMS: The one-year outcome of lesions in small coronary arteries by using a paclitaxel-iopromide-coated (3 µg/mm²) balloon catheter (DCB) has yielded good six-month angiographic and one-year clinical data. We now report the three-year clinical follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and twenty patients with >70% stenoses <22 mm in length in small coronary vessels (vessel diameter: 2.25-2.8 mm) were treated with the DCB. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. The secondary endpoints encompassed all other angiographic and clinical data up to three years post intervention. In total 82/120 (68.3%) patients with a vessel diameter of 2.35±0.19 mm were treated with the DCB only, and 32/120 (26.7%) patients required additional bare metal stent (BMS) deployment. Both the 12- and 36-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 5/82 (6.1%) for DCB only and 12/32 (37.5%) for DCB+BMS, primarily due to the need for target lesion revascularisation in 4/82 (4.9%) patients and 9/32 (28.1%) (p<0.001) patients, respectively. Total MACE rate after 36 months was 18/120 (15%; intention-to-treat). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease with a paclitaxel-iopromide-coated balloon exhibited good six-month angiographic and one-year clinical data that persisted during the three-year follow-up period. Randomised trials will clarify its role as an alternative to drug-eluting stents in the treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00404144).

The paclitaxel-eluting PTCA-balloon in combination with a cobalt-chromium stent in two different sequences to treat de novo coronary artery lesions: an angiographic follow up study.

INTRODUCTION: The paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter (DCB) based on the PACCOCATH(®) technology has yielded angiographic and clinical results superior to drug-eluting stents (DES) in situations like in-stent restenosis (ISR) and a trend towards superior results in small coronary vessels and side branches of coronary bifurcations. Using the DCB followed by cobalt-chromium stent (CoCr) deployment or with a reverse sequence may yield different outcomes in terms of late loss. METHODS: 97 patients with de-novo coronary stenosis (55.6 ± 10.7 years, 79.4% male, ≥70%, length: ≤25 mm, vessel diameter: 2.5-4.0 mm) were randomly treated with the DCB (3 µg/mm²) followed by a CoCr-stent or stent first and DCB later. Six-month angiographic and one-year clinical follow-up intention-to-treat analyses were performed. RESULTS: Angiographic and demographic baseline data was comparable between the two groups. When comparing balloon first versus stent first technique, the primary outcome variables were not statistically different for mean in-segment (0.51 ± 0.56 mm vs. 0.36 ± 0.55 mm, p = 0.23) and in-stent (0.52 ± 0.55 mm vs. 0.46 ± 0.52 mm, p = 0.65) late lumen loss. The lesion related 12-month MACE rates were 5/49 (10.2%) and 2/48 (4.2%) (p = 0.44). Lesion related thrombotic events occurred in three patients in balloon first and in one patient in stent first group, two of which were associated with early discontinuation of continuous dual anti-platelet therapy, two with suboptimal PCI, and one each were performed in a thrombotic lesion and a bifurcation type 1.1.0. CONCLUSION: Drug-coated balloon first followed by cobalt chromium stent deployment versus a reverse sequence is not associated with statistically significantly different 6-month angiographic or 12-month clinical outcomes.

Treatment of bifurcation lesions with a drug-eluting balloon: the PEPCAD V (Paclitaxel Eluting PTCA Balloon in Coronary Artery Disease) trial.

AIMS: Percutaneous coronary interventions for bifurcation lesions are often complex and associated with an unsatisfactory result. The aim of this first-in-man, observational study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon in these lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients presenting significant coronary bifurcational lesions of the left coronary artery were studied. The main branch (MB) and the side branch (SB) were dilated with a drug-eluting balloon (DEB; SeQuent Please balloon catheter , 3 µg paclitaxel/mm2 balloon surface). An open-cell bare-metal stent (BMS; Coroflex) was then deployed in the MB. Only if the SB had a TIMI flow

Paclitaxel-eluting balloon angioplasty and cobalt-chromium stents versus conventional angioplasty and paclitaxel-eluting stents in the treatment of native coronary artery stenoses in patients with diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: Coronary lesions in diabetics (DM) are associated with a high recurrence following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even after drug-eluting stent (DES) deployment. Encouraging clinical data of the drug-eluting balloon catheter (DEB) SeQuent Please warrant its investigation in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-four diabetic patients (60.8 ± 9.1 years, 76.2% male) were randomised to either the DEB SeQuent Please or the DES Taxus Liberté to compare the 9-month clinical and angiographic outcome of PCI in native coronary arteries. Comparing the DEB vs. the DES the 9-month results (follow-up DEB 39/45 [86.7%], DES 36/39 [92.3%]) are statistically not different at the 0.05 level for the primary endpoint of in-segment (0.37 ± 0.59 mm vs. 0.35 ± 0.63 mm) and in-stent (0.51 ± 0.61 mm vs. 0.53 ± 0.67 mm) late lumen loss, overall and cardiac deaths (2/45 [4.4%] and 3/45 [6.7%] vs. 0), target lesion revascularisation (3/45 [8.9%] vs. 4/39 [10.3%]), the total MACE rate (6/45 [13.3%] vs. 6/39 [15.4%]), and the event free survival after 10.2 ± 3.8 months (Kaplan-Meier analysis, p<0.80, log rank test). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and angiographic outcome of the combination of the drug-eluting balloon SeQuent Please with a cobalt chromium stent compared to the drug eluting Taxus stent are similar.

Treatment of small coronary arteries with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of lesions in small coronary arteries by percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention is limited by a high recurrence rate. We assessed the use of a paclitaxel-coated balloon in this indication. METHODS: One-hundred eighteen patients with stenoses in small coronary vessels were treated by a paclitaxel-coated balloon (3 microg/mm(2)). The main inclusion criteria encompassed diameter stenosis of > or =70% and < or =22 mm in length with a vessel diameter of 2.25-2.8 mm. Follow-up angiography was performed at scheduled 6-month post-intervention or whenever driven by clinical or electrocardiographic signs of ischemia. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. RESULTS: Eighty-two of 118 patients (70%) with a vessel diameter of 2.35 +/- 0.19 mm were treated with the drug-coated balloon only, while 32 patients required additional stent deployment. The mean in-segment late lumen loss was 0.28 +/- 0.53 mm. In patients treated with the drug-coated balloon only, the in-segment late lumen loss was 0.16 +/- 0.38 mm. At 12 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 15% which was primarily due to the need for target lesion revascularization in 14 patients (12%). In those with additional bare metal stent implantation geographical mismatch between coated-balloon dilatation and stent implantation was significantly associated with the occurrence of restenosis. CONCLUSION: Treatment of coronary stenosis in small coronary vessels with the paclitaxel-coated balloon was well tolerated. It may offer an alternative to the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00404144).

Short- and long-term effects of a novel paclitaxel coated stent in the porcine coronary model.

BACKGROUND: Drug eluting stents (DES) are unique in allowing sustained release for weeks after a single short intervention. The challenge with DES still remaining is the combination of a biocompatible drug-eluting matrix including an antiproliferative drug showing efficacy and safety in restenosis prevention. The aim of the present animal studies was to evaluate the novel paclitaxel coated Coroflex. Please stent in the porcine coronary model. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stents were implanted into LAD and CX arteries of 49 domestic pigs. After 5 days, 4 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months, the animals underwent control angiography including dissection of the stented coronary arteries for histology. After 5 days, 3 and 6 months the Coroflex. Please stent was compared with its uncoated counterpart and a paclitaxel free but polymer coated version. After 28 days, an additional group received the Taxus Express(2) stent. After 5 days, healing with the paclitaxel coated stent was comparable to the uncoated bare metal stent as reflected in a similar neointimal proliferation. Compared to the Taxus stent, the new Coroflex. Please stent showed a similar neointimal proliferation after 4 weeks. Inflammatory reaction was comparable among the bare stent and polymer coated stent groups. Paclitaxel coating was associated with a slightly increased inflammatory reaction with both DES. After 3 and 6 months, all groups showed a similar neointimal proliferation and inflammatory reaction. CONCLUSION: The present porcine studies demonstrate excellent safety of the new paclitaxel coated Coroflex stent in the porcine coronary stent model.

The paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent pilot study (PECOPS I) : the one-year clinical follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The alleged superiority of drug-eluting stents over bare metal devices and those with passive coatings is diminished by a higher incidence of late target vessel thrombosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Therefore, the one-year clinical outcome of the paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent in patients with denovo coronary lesions was evaluated in the single-arm PECOPS I pilot study. The clinical data of 96/97 (99%) of the patients included per protocol and of 86/87 (98.9%) of those treated per protocol were available 13.1 +/- 1.8 months following stent deployment. In the inclusion and treatment per protocol groups the incidence of cardiac deaths was 1/96 (1%) and 1/86 (1.2%), of myocardial infarction 3/96 (3.1%) and 1/86 (1.2%), and of target lesion revascularization 9/96 (9.4%) and 8/86 (9.3%). In patients enrolled per protocol two early thromboses (2.1%) occurred one of which two days after premature discontinuation of clopidogrel. In patients treated per protocol one thrombosis was observed after 10 hours. The one-year event-free survival was 83/96 (86.5%) in patients enrolled per protocol and 75/86 (87.2%) in those treated per protocol. CONCLUSION: The one-year clinical outcome of PECOPS I was within the range of other paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. The relative small number of patients enrolled in PECOPS I precludes to infer any further conclusions.

The paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent pilot study (PECOPS I): acute and 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Various active stent coatings significantly reduce restenosis rates and target lesion revascularization compared to bare metal stents. Therefore, the procedural and 6-month performance of the new paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex. Please stent was investigated. METHODS: Ninety-seven patients (66 +/- 7.6 years, 34/97(35.1%) diabetics, 11/97(11.3%) unstable angina) were enrolled per protocol for elective single stent deployment into native coronary de-novo or post-PTCA restenotic lesions (stenosis: >or= 70%, < 100%; reference diameter >or= 2.25 mm and <3.3 mm; lesion length