Diabetes mellitus and femoropopliteal in-stent restenosis.

Background: The influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR) of femoropopliteal arteries remains understudied. We investigated whether DM has an impact on recurrent restenosis after femoropopliteal stenting in patients included in the dRug-coatEd balloon angioPlasty for femoropopliteAl In-stent Restenosis (REPAIR) cooperation. Patients and methods: The REPAIR cooperation pooled the patient-level data from 3 randomized trials in which patients with ISR of femoropopliteal arteries received either drug-coated balloon (DCB) or plain balloon angioplasty. For this analysis, patients were divided in two groups based on whether they had or had not a DM diagnosis at the time of enrollment. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). The main secondary outcome was recurrent ISR. Other outcomes of interest were death, Rutherford class improvement and ankle-brachial index at follow-up. Results: 256 patients (DM, n=99 vs. non-DM, n=157) with 12-month follow-up were included in the analysis. Compared to non-DM patients, DM patients displayed no difference in terms of TLR [adjusted hazard ratio (95% Confidence intervals): 0.96 (0.55, 1.69), p=0.89] and recurrent ISR [1.04 (0.61, 1.77), p=0.88], whilst mortality was higher [9.38 (1.06, 83.11), p=0.044]. There were no differences between groups with respect to other secondary outcomes. The percutaneous treatment with DCB as compared to plain balloon angioplasty significantly reduced the risk of TLR and recurrent ISR without an excess risk of death irrespective of DM (p for interaction ≥0.70). Conclusions: In patients with femoropopliteal ISR, diabetes has a neutral effect on the risk of recurrence, but increases mortality at 12-month follow-up. DCB as compared to plain balloon angioplasty is associated with superior efficacy without trade-off in safety, regardless of diabetes.

Outcome after new generation single-layer polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent implantation for the treatment of coronary artery perforation.

AIMS: Coronary artery perforation (CAP) is a rare but severe complication during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Implantation of covered stents (CS) represents a potentially life-saving treatment. Concerns exist regarding limited efficacy and high stent thrombosis (ST) rates related to early generation CS. The aim of this study was to evaluate angiographic and clinical outcomes of patients with CAP treated with a new generation single-layer polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-CS. METHODS: Between May 2013 and November 2017, we identified a total of 61 patients who underwent implantation of 71 single layer PTFE-CS after CAP. We analyzed angiographic results at follow up (including binary angiographic restenosis [BAR] and late-lumen-loss [LLL]) and clinical outcomes in hospital and at follow up, including target lesion revascularization (TLR), cardiovascular-, and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST). RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in all but two patients (96.7%). Procedure related MI, occurred in 19 cases (31.1%), in hospital death occurred in five cases (8.2%). At follow-up, TLR occurred in 11 cases (18.0%), two patients (3.3%) died from non-cardiovascular cause, there was no case of MI or ST. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, implantation of a new generation PTFE-CS, for the treatment of CAP showed high technical success rates. Although, periprocedural MI-and in-hospital-death rates remain not inconsiderable, new generation PTFE-CS showed favorable angiographic and clinical efficacy and high safety profile, especially with regard to thrombotic events.

Polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting versus new generation zotarolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting versus Zotarolimus-eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST 5) trial.

BACKGROUND: Durable polymer coatings have been implicated in mid- and long-term adverse events after drug-eluting stent implantation. A polymer-free dual-drug sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent and a new generation permanent polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent are recently developed technologies demonstrating encouraging results. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a clinical trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 3002 patients to treatment with sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of the sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents. The primary end point was the combined incidence of cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. Follow-up angiography was scheduled at 6 to 8 months. The sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent was noninferior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent in terms of occurrence of the primary end point (13.1% versus 13.5%, respectively, P(noninferiority)=0.006; hazard ratio=0.97, 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.19; P(superiority)=0.74). The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was low in both groups (1.1% versus 1.2%, respectively; hazard ratio=0.91 [95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 1.84], P=0.80). With regard to angiographic efficacy, there were no differences between the sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent and the zotarolimus-eluting stent in terms of either in-segment binary angiographic restenosis (13.3% versus 13.4% respectively; P=0.95) or in-stent late luminal loss (0.31±0.58 mm versus 0.29±0.56 mm, respectively; P=0.46). CONCLUSION: In this large-scale study powered for clinical end points, a polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent was noninferior to a new generation durable polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent out to 12 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT 00598533.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions (ISAR-CABG): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Comparative assessment of clinical outcomes after use of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for treatment of aortocoronary saphenous vein graft lesions has not been undertaken in large randomised trials. We aimed to undertake a comparison in a randomised trial powered for clinical endpoints. METHODS: In this randomised superiority trial, patients with de-novo saphenous vein graft lesions were assigned by computer-generated sequence (1:1:1:3) to receive either drug-eluting stents (one of three types: permanent-polymer paclitaxel-eluting stents, permanent-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents, or biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents) or bare-metal stents. Randomisation took place immediately after crossing of the lesion with a guidewire, and was stratified for each participating centre. Investigators assessing data were masked to treatment allocation; patients were not masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularisation at 1 year. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00611910. FINDINGS: 610 patients were allocated to treatment groups (303 drug-eluting stent, 307 bare-metal stent). Drug-eluting stents reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint compared with bare-metal stents (44 [15%] vs 66 [22%] patients; hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94; p=0.02). Target lesion revascularisation rate was reduced by drug-eluting stents (19 [7%] vs 37 [13%] patients; HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.86; p=0.01). No significant differences were seen between drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents regarding all-cause mortality (15 [5%] vs 14 [5%] patients; HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.52-2.24; p=0.83), myocardial infarction (12 [4%] vs 18 [6%]; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32-1.37; p=0.27), or definite or probable stent thrombosis (2 [1%] in both groups; HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14-7.10; p=0.99). INTERPRETATION: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de-novo saphenous vein graft lesions, drug-eluting stents are the preferred treatment option because they reduce the risk of adverse events compared with bare-metal stents. FUNDING: Deutsches Herzzentrum.

Angiographic outcomes with biodegradable polymer and permanent polymer drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: In the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) trial, we demonstrated the noninferiority of biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting stent to permanent polymer (PP) sirolimus/everolimus-eluting stent (Cypher/Xience-V) on the basis of clinical outcomes. In this study, we compare the antirestenotic efficacy of these stents in ISAR-TEST-4 patients with paired angiographic studies. METHODS: Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels (excluding left main lesions) were randomly assigned to receive a BP stent or a PP stent. Endpoints of interest of this study were in-stent late lumen loss, in-segment binary restenosis, and restenosis morphology at 6-8-month follow-up angiogram. RESULTS: Of the 2,603 patients (3,372 lesions) enrolled in ISAR TEST-4 trial, 2,016 patients (2,637 lesions) underwent repeat angiographic examination 6-8 months after randomization: 1,006 patients (1,323 lesions) treated with BP stents and 1,010 patients (1,314 lesions) treated with PP stents. No difference was observed between BP and PP stents in in-stent late lumen loss (0.24 ± 0.6 vs. 0.26 ± 0.5 mm, respectively, P = 0.49) or in in-segment binary restenosis (11.6% [153 lesions] vs. 11.8% [155 lesions], P = 0.85). Focal pattern of restenosis was observed in the majority of patients receiving either BP or PP stents. The diffuse pattern of restenosis was observed in 26.8% of patients treated with BP stent and 26.5% of patients treated with PP stent (P = 0.79). CONCLUSION: Angiographic characteristics of restenosis after BP-based limus-eluting stents are similar to those of PP-based limus-eluting stents.

Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Durable Polymer New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease With and Without Diabetes Mellitus.

Background Extended long-term follow-up data of new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus is scant. The aim of this study is to assess the 10-year clinical outcome of new-generation biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer-based everolimus-eluting stents (XIENCE) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis, outcomes of patients with or without diabetes mellitus treated with drug-eluting stents were compared. The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The analysis includes a total of 1951 patients (560 patients with and 1391 patients without diabetes mellitus) randomized to treatment with Yukon Choice PC (n=1299) or Xience (n=652). Regarding the primary end point, at 10 years patients with diabetes mellitus showed significantly higher major adverse cardiac event rates than patients without diabetes mellitus (P<0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.22-1.63). There was no significant difference between patients treated with Yukon Choice PC versus Xience, neither in the subgroup of patients with (P=0.91; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30) nor without diabetes mellitus (P=0.50; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). Rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis were 2.3% in patients with and 1.9% in patients without diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.34-2.60; P=0.52), without significant differences between study devices. Conclusions The clinical outcome of patients with diabetes after percutaneous coronary intervention with different new-generation drug-eluting stents is considerably worse than that of patients without diabetes mellitus, with event rates constantly increasing out to 10 years. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00598676.

10-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Trial of Polymer-Free Versus Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents.

BACKGROUND: Outcome data after extended long-term follow-up of patients with coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in randomized clinical trials are scant. OBJECTIVES: Performance differences among devices may be expected to emerge over time depending on whether stenting is done with polymer-free or durable polymer DES. This study assessed the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST-5 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial. METHODS: A total of 3,002 patients were randomized to treatment with either polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 2,002) or durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 1,000). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (a device-oriented composite endpoint [DOCE]). Additional endpoints of interest were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization; individual components of the composite endpoints; and definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The median age of the patients at randomization was 67.8 years. At 10 years, 63.9% of patients were alive. The rates of DOCE and POCE were high in both groups with no difference in the incidence between polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DOCE: 43.8% vs. 43.0%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 1.14; p = 0.90; POCE: 66.2% vs. 67.7%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.22). The rates of the individual components of the composite endpoints were comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis over 10 years was low and comparable in both groups (1.6% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with polymer-free versus durable polymer DES. The incidence of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups. High overall adverse clinical event rates were observed during extended follow-up. (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-5]; NCT00598533).

Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Femoropopliteal In-Stent Restenosis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization therapy for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of femoropopliteal arteries represents a matter of debate. We investigated the outcomes of patients treated with drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for ISR of femoropopliteal arteries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient-level data from 3 randomized trials of DCB angioplasty for ISR of femoropopliteal arteries were pooled. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization. The main secondary outcome was recurrent ISR. Other outcomes of interest were ipsilateral amputation, death, Rutherford class improvement, and ankle-brachial index at follow-up. A total of 263 patients randomly assigned to DCB (n=133) or plain balloon angioplasty (n=130) were included in the analysis. After a follow-up of 12 months, patients treated with DCB angioplasty displayed a lower risk for target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio [95% CIs]: 0.25 [0.14-0.46]; P<0.001) and recurrent ISR (0.19 [0.10-0.35]; P<0.001) as compared with those treated with plain balloon angioplasty. There was no significant interaction between the treatment effect for target lesion revascularization and high-risk subgroups of patients such as those with diabetes mellitus, longer lesions, small vessels, moderate to severe underlying calcification, and occlusive pattern of ISR. DCB and plain balloon angioplasty were comparable with respect to other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In case of femoropopliteal ISR, the percutaneous treatment with DCB angioplasty is associated with superior clinical and antirestenotic efficacy as compared with plain balloon angioplasty at 1-year follow-up, without attrition of efficacy in high-risk subgroups of patients. The long-term durability of DCB angioplasty in this setting remains to be further investigated.

Outcomes of patients treated with ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

AIMS: The ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) developed to improve the percutaneous treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. Here, we sought to investigate whether the performance of the ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer SES is superior to that of the benchmark thin-strut fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent (EES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We undertook a study-level meta-analysis of trials in which patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to either SES or EES. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), death, target lesion failure (TLF) and target vessel failure (TVF). A total of 4,853 patients received a PCI with either SES (n=2,816) or EES (n=2,037) in six trials. After a weighted median follow-up of 12 months, patients treated with SES had a risk of TLR (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.24 [0.83-1.85], p=0.30), definite/probable ST (0.84 [0.53-1.33], p=0.45) and MI related to the target vessel (0.77 [0.55-1.07], p=0.12) comparable to that of patients treated with EES. We found no significant difference with regard to other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: At one-year follow-up, the ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent displays a performance comparable to that of the fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent.

Vascular response to percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable-polymer vs. new-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of optical coherence tomography imaging trials.

Aims: Whether biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) induce a vascular response at follow-up more favourable than that of new-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) remains controversial. We sought to evaluate the vascular response to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BP-DES vs. new-generation DP-DES as assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging at follow-up. Methods and results: We undertook a meta-analysis of aggregate data by searching electronic scientific databases for investigations of PCI-patients receiving BP-DES vs. new-generation DP-DES and OCT imaging at follow-up. The primary outcome was neointima hyperplasia (NIH) thickness. The co-primary outcome was the incidence of lesions with uncovered struts. The main secondary outcome was the incidence of lesions with malapposed struts. Among 10 trials, a total of 544 PCI-patients were assigned to BP-DES (n = 282) or new-generation DP-DES (n = 262). Of these, 447 participants with 480 treated lesions had analysable OCT imaging at a weighted median follow-up of 7 months. Lesions treated with BP-DES vs. new-generation DP-DES showed comparable NIH thickness [weighted mean difference 95% confidence intervals (CI) = -11.37 (-29.25, 6.52); P = 0.21]. However, thick-struts (>100 µm) BP-DES showed less NIH thickness as compared to new-generation DP-DES [-20.39 (-33.83, -6.95); P = 0.003]. BP-DES vs. new-generation DP-DES showed a higher risk for uncovered struts [odds ratio 95% CI = 3.50 (1.69-7.26); P = 0.0008] and a trend towards higher risk for malapposed struts [2.01 (0.98-4.12); P = 0.06]. Conclusion: In PCI-patients with available OCT imaging at follow-up, BP-DES with thicker backbones delay vascular response as compared with new-generation DP-DES.

Midterm clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents for percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) for percutaneous coronary interventions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a meta-analysis of aggregate data by searching Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings for randomised trials reporting the clinical outcomes beyond one year of patients treated with BVS versus EES. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were target lesion failure (TLF) and definite/probable stent (scaffold) thrombosis (ST), respectively. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of the primary efficacy outcome (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation [ID-TLR]). A total of 5,583 patients randomly received BVS (n=3,261) or EES (n=2,322) in seven trials. Weighted median follow-up was 26.6 months. Patients treated with BVS versus EES showed a higher risk of TLF (odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.65; p=0.0028) due to a higher risk of target vessel MI (OR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.21-2.33; p=0.008) and ID-TLR (OR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.10-1.84; p=0.007) though the risk for cardiac death was not statistically different (OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.55-1.43; p=0.56). Patients treated with BVS versus EES showed a higher risk of definite/probable ST (OR 3.24, 95% CI: 1.92-5.49; p<0.0001), particularly in the period beyond one year after implantation (OR 4.03, 95% CI: 1.49-10.87; p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: At midterm follow-up, patients treated with BVS as compared to those treated with EES display a higher risk of target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis.

Outcomes of patients treated with durable polymer platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

AIMS: The durable polymer platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES) is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) with a platinum-enriched metallic platform developed to improve the percutaneous treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. We sought to investigate the performance of durable polymer PtCr-EES versus other new-generation DES. METHODS AND RESULTS: We undertook a meta-analysis of trials in which patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to durable polymer PtCr-EES versus other new-generation DES (other DES). Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularisation (TVR), death, cardiac death and longitudinal stent deformation (LSD). A total of 11,036 patients in seven trials received a PCI with either durable polymer PtCr-EES (n=6,613) or other DES (n=4,423). This latter group comprised patients treated with biolimus- (n=325), cobalt-chromium everolimus- (n=1,940) or zotarolimus-eluting stents (n=2,158). After a median follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range 12-24), durable polymer PtCr-EES displayed a risk of TLR (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-1.29; p=0.90) and definite/probable ST (0.89 [0.55-1.45]; p=0.63) comparable to that of other DES. However, the durable polymer PtCr-EES was associated with a higher risk of LSD (12.05 [1.60-90.71], p=0.02) compared to other DES. There was no significant difference with regard to other secondary outcomes nor was there heterogeneity across trials. CONCLUSIONS: At one-year follow-up, the durable polymer PtCr-EES displays a performance comparable to that of other new-generation DES platforms.

ISAR-PEBIS (Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Conventional Balloon Angioplasty for In-Stent Restenosis of Superficial Femoral Artery): A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) angioplasty has superior efficacy compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) for de novo lesions of superficial femoral artery (SFA). Studies investigating the angiographic and clinical performance of PEB angioplasty versus BA for in-stent restenosis of SFA are limited. We performed a randomized trial to investigate angiographic and clinical performance of PEB versus BA for in-stent restenosis of SFA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic in-stent restenosis of SFA were randomly assigned to either PEB or BA at 2 centers in Munich, Germany. The primary end point was the percentage diameter stenosis at 6- to 8-month follow-up angiography. Secondary end points were the rate of binary restenosis at follow-up angiography and target lesion revascularization, target vessel thrombosis, ipsilateral amputation, bypass surgery of the affected limb, and all-cause mortality at 24-month follow-up. Seventy patients were assigned to PEB (n=36) or BA (n=34). Mean lesion length was 139±67 mm, and roughly one third of lesions were completely occluded at the time of the index procedure. At control angiography, the percentage diameter stenosis (44±33% versus 65±33%, P=0.01) and binary restenosis were significantly reduced with PEB versus BA (30% versus 59%, P=0.03). At 24-month follow-up, PEB was associated with a significant reduction of target lesion revascularization in comparison to BA (19% versus 50%, P=0.007). There was no difference with respect to other outcomes of interest. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with in-stent restenosis of SFA, a percutaneous therapy with PEB compared with BA has superior angiographic performance at 6 to 8 months and improved clinical efficacy up to 24-month follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01083394.

Neointimal Modification With Scoring Balloon and Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Therapy in Patients With Restenosis in Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare neointimal modification with scoring balloon pre-dilation before drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus DCB standard therapy in patients presenting with drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis. BACKGROUND: DCB angioplasty for the treatment of coronary drug-eluting stent restenosis has demonstrated encouraging results. The efficacy of DCB treatment relies on rapid initial drug transfer and tissue retention of the antiproliferative drug. Neointimal modification with scoring balloon pre-dilation may enhance the efficacy of DCB therapy. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial, 252 patients with clinically significant DES restenosis were enrolled at 4 centers in Germany. Patients undergoing DCB angioplasty were randomly assigned to treatment with scoring balloon pre-dilation or standard therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was in-segment percentage diameter stenosis on 6- to 8-month follow-up angiography. The secondary endpoints included binary angiographic restenosis and late lumen loss on follow-up angiography, the combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and target lesion thrombosis at 1 year. RESULTS: Follow-up angiographic data at 6 to 8 months were available for 203 patients (80.6%). Scoring balloon pre-dilation compared with standard therapy showed significantly lower rates with respect to the primary endpoint (35.0 ± 16.8% vs. 40.4 ± 21.4%; p = 0.047) and binary angiographic restenosis (18.5% vs. 32.0%; p = 0.026). Late lumen loss was numerically lower after scoring balloon pre-dilation compared with standard therapy (0.31 ± 59 mm vs. 0.41 ± 0.74 mm; p = 0.27). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of death or myocardial infarction (4.0% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.73). Scoring balloon versus standard therapy showed comparable rates of target lesion revascularization (16.2% vs. 21.8%; p = 0.26). No target lesion thrombosis occurred out to 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with drug-eluting stent restenosis, neointimal modification with scoring balloon improves the antirestenotic efficacy of DCB therapy. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Optimizing Treatment of Drug Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis 4 [ISAR-DESIRE 4]; NCT01632371).

Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Plain Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and all-cause death at 12 months and at the maximum available follow-up. Secondary objectives included the identification of factors which could have influenced general findings. BACKGROUND: Recently several randomized trials comparing drug-coated balloon (DCB) with conventional plain balloon (PB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease have been reported, but no updated meta-analyses are available and questions remain surrounding the long-term antirestenotic effectiveness of the 2 therapies. METHODS: We searched main electronic databases for randomized trials comparing DCB and PB for femoropopliteal artery disease. Random effects models were used to estimate the risk of TLR and all-cause death at 12 months, whereas long-term TLR and death risk were assessed by mixed effects Poisson regression models and incident rates of each outcome per patient-year. Main analyses were supplemented by sensitivity analyses, Bayesian estimates, and trial sequential analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8 eligible trials were identified. DCB was associated with a marked 12-month TLR risk reduction as compared with PB (risk ratio: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19 to 0.57). The risk of death was similar between groups (risk ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.95). Long-term outcomes assessment showed a reduced incidence of TLR with DCB (0.35; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.51) and a similar incidence of all-cause death (incidence rate ratio: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.60 to 2.15). Similar findings were observed in Bayesian analyses. Significant heterogeneity was present with evidence of differential efficacy across devices. Trial sequential analysis indicated that available evidence is sufficient to prove superior antirestenotic efficacy of DCB over PB. CONCLUSIONS: DCB significantly reduces the risk of TLR as compared with PB without any effect on all-cause death. Evidence exists for differential efficacy according to the type of device used. Future trials investigating DCB angioplasty should include potentially more effective comparator therapies.

Drug-Coated Balloons for Revascularization of Infrapopliteal Arteries: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating the outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization with drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for atherosclerotic disease of the infrapopliteal arteries. BACKGROUND: The role of DCBs as revascularization therapy for infrapopliteal arteries represents a matter of ongoing controversy. METHODS: Scientific databases were searched for randomized trials of DCB therapy for atherosclerotic disease of the infrapopliteal arteries. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were target lesion revascularization and amputation, respectively. Secondary outcomes were death, major adverse events, Rutherford class 5 or 6, and late lumen loss. RESULTS: A total of 641 patients enrolled in 5 trials received DCBs (n = 378) or control therapy (uncoated balloons or drug-eluting stents; n = 263). Median follow-up duration was 12 months. Patients treated with DCBs had risk for target lesion revascularization (risk ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47 to 1.09; p = 0.12), amputation (risk ratio: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.58; p = 0.95), death (risk ratio: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.82; p = 0.59), major adverse events (risk ratio: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.43; p = 0.70), and Rutherford class 5 or 6 (risk ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.62; p = 0.65) comparable with that of patients treated with control therapy. Lesions treated with DCBs showed lower late lumen loss (weighted mean difference -0.41; 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.03; p = 0.04) compared with those treated with control therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with uncoated balloons or drug-eluting stents, the treatment of infrapopliteal arteries with DCBs is associated with similar clinical outcomes and favorable angiographic efficacy at 1-year follow-up. Further studies in larger numbers of patients are still needed to definitively address the role of DCB technology in this setting. (Drug-coated balloon for revascularization of tibialpedal arteries: a meta-analysis of randomized trials; CRD42015029283).

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon for the Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB), paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), or balloon angioplasty (BA) for the treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis. BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis remains unknown. Although PEB has shown encouraging results, the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of PEB remains poorly defined. METHODS: A total of 402 patients with clinically significant restenosis in limus-eluting stents were randomly assigned to receive PEB (n = 137), PES (n = 131), or BA (n = 134). For this analysis, PEB versus PES and PEB versus BA were compared. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion revascularization and the composite of death or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 3 years, the risk of target lesion revascularization was comparable with PEB versus PES (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.33; p = 0.11) and lower with PEB versus BA (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.74; p < 0.001). The risk of death/myocardial infarction tended to be lower with PEB versus PES (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.07; p = 0.08), due to a lower risk of death (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.87; p = 0.02). The risk of death/myocardial infarction was similar with PEB versus BA (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.46 to 2.0; p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years, the use of PEB as compared with PES to treat patients with limus-eluting stent restenosis has similar efficacy and safety. PEB remains superior to BA. The sustained efficacy without trade-off in safety supports the role of PEB as treatment option for patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis: 3 Treatment Approaches [ISAR-DESIRE 3]; NCT00987324).

Paclitaxel-coated balloon or primary bare nitinol stent for revascularization of femoropopliteal artery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials versus uncoated balloon and an adjusted indirect comparison.

BACKGROUND: The performance of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) or primary bare nitinol stent (BNS) versus uncoated balloon angioplasty (UCB) for femoropopliteal artery disease and the relative efficacy and safety of PCB versus BNS are still debated. METHODS: A meta-analysis of trials in which patients were randomly assigned to PCB versus UCB or BNS versus UCB was performed, as well as an indirect comparison of PCB versus BNS, with UCB common comparator. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR); secondary endpoints were restenosis, death and amputation. RESULTS: In total, 1464 patients were assigned to revascularization with PCB versus UCB (n = 441) or BNS versus UCB (n = 1023). Treatment with PCB versus UCB reduced the risk of TLR (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.29 [0.15-0.56], p < 0.001) and restenosis (0.31 [0.19-0.51], p < 0.001) without affecting mortality (1.05 [0.41-2.71], p = 0.92) or amputation (0.68 [0.04-10.31], p = 0.78). BNS versus UCB therapy reduced the risk of TLR (0.46 [0.27-0.80], p = 0.006) and restenosis (0.51 [0.34-0.77], p = 0.02) without affecting mortality (2.08 [0.93-4.66], p = 0.07) or amputation (0.84 [0.30-2.35], p = 0.74). The indirect comparison found no difference with PCB versus BNS in the risk of TLR (0.63 [0.26-1.48] p = 0.29), restenosis (0.60 [0.32-1.15], p = 0.13) death (0.50 [0.05-4.82], p = 0.55) or amputation (0.80 [0.04-15.63], p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In atherosclerotic disease of femoropopliteal artery, both PCB and BNS therapy have superior antirestenotic efficacy to UCB, without safety issues. At indirect comparison, PCB and BNS may have comparable antirestenotic efficacy and safety.

Paclitaxel-coated versus uncoated balloon angioplasty reduces target lesion revascularization in patients with femoropopliteal arterial disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: In disease of the femoropopliteal artery, paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) therapy improved angiographic outcomes as compared with uncoated balloon (UCB) angioplasty. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain whether PCB may reduce the need for reintervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), scientific session abstracts, and relevant web sites for trials of PCB versus UCB angioplasty. Key words were: "superficial femoral artery," "popliteal artery," "angioplasty," "drug-eluting balloon," "paclitaxel-eluting balloon," and "randomized trial." Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized design; (2) intention-to-treat analysis; and (3) ≥6-month follow-up. Exclusion criteria were: (1) vessel treated other than femoropopliteal artery; (2) device used other than PCB/UCB; and (3) irretrievable or duplicated data. No restrictions (language, publication date, or status) were applied. The primary end point was target lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were: angiographic binary restenosis and late lumen loss and all-cause mortality. A total of 381 patients enrolled in 4 randomized trials were included (PCB, n=186 versus UCB, n=195). Median follow-up was 10.3 months. Angioplasty with PCB versus UCB reduces target lesion revascularization (12.2% versus 27.7%; OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.38; P<0.00001), angiographic restenosis (18.7% versus 45.5%; OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48; P<0.0001), and late lumen loss (range, -0.05 to 0.50 mm versus 0.61-1.7 mm; weighted mean difference, -0.75 mm; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.45; P<0.00001). No mortality difference was observed for PCB versus UCB (2.1% versus 3.2%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.39-2.49; P=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In femoropopliteal arterial disease, PCB therapy is associated with superior antirestenotic efficacy as compared with UCB angioplasty with no evidence of a differential safety profile.