A propensity score matched comparative study between paclitaxel-coated balloon and everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of small coronary vessels.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of paclitaxel drug-coated-balloons (DCB) and everolimus-eluting-stents (EES) following the treatment of de novo small vessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear whether treatment of de novo small vessel coronary disease with DCB is comparable to second generation drug-eluting stents, which are the current standard of care. METHODS: The present study enrolled 90 patients with small vessel coronary disease from the DCB treatment arm of the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) trial and 2,000 patients treated with EES at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, yielding a total of 181 patients: 90 patients with 94 lesions receiving DCB and 91 patients with 94 lesions receiving EES. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. The cumulative MACE rate at 1-year was 12.2% with DCB and 15.4% with EES (P = 0.538). Patients in the DCB group had similar TLR rates as compared to EES over the same interval (4.4% vs. 5.6%; P = 0.720). There were no cases of definite or probable stent or vessel thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of paclitaxel-DCB appears to be associated with similar clinical outcomes when compared to second-generation-EES in small coronary artery disease. The findings of this study should be confirmed with larger prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparison of 2-year outcomes between zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting new-generation cobalt-chromium alloy stents in real-world diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: To date, it remains unknown whether different types of new-generation drug-eluting stents have a differential impact on long-term outcomes in diabetic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this historical cohort study (two Italian centers), we analyzed 400 diabetic patients with 553 coronary lesions treated with new-generation CoCr zotarolimus-eluting stents (R-ZES: 136 patients, 196 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (EES: 264 patients, 357 lesions) between October 2006 and August 2012. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over a 2-year follow-up period. MACE was defined as all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI) and/or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Multivessel revascularization, intervention for restenotic lesion and use of intravascular ultrasound were significantly higher in the R-ZES group, whereas small stent (≤2.5 mm) deployment was significantly higher in the EES group. At 2-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in occurrence of MACE (R-ZES vs EES: 22.8% vs 18.9%, P = 0.39). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI (10.0% vs 10.3%, P = 0.86) or TLR (12.4% vs 7.4%, P = 0.11). Adjustment for confounders and baseline propensity-score matching did not alter the aforementioned associations. CONCLUSION: After 2 years of follow up similar outcomes (MACE, all-cause mortality/MI, TLR) were observed in real-world diabetic patients, including those with complex lesions and patient characteristics, treated with R-ZES and EES.

Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus-eluting stent implantation in a real-world population.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) and cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with mostly complex disease. BACKGROUND: BVS represents the most interesting development in the drug-eluting stent field over recent years with promising results emerging from clinical trials. Available data however on the use of the ABSORB in real-world patients is limited. METHODS: All patients (n = 92) treated with BVS and 1296 patients treated with EES were included in this study. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, yielding 92 patient pairs (BVS = 92 patients with 137 lesions and EES = 92 patients with 124 lesions). Clinical outcomes were examined between the 2 groups at 6-months. RESULTS: In both groups, most lesions were classified as either B2 or C (83.9% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.19). Predilatation (97.8% vs. 75.8%, P < 0.01) as well as postdilation (99.3% vs. 77.4%, P < 0.01) was more common in the BVS group. Clinical outcomes at 6-months were similar between the two groups with respect to both target lesion revascularization (3.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.41) and major adverse cardiac events (defined as the composite of target vessel revascularization, follow-up myocardial infraction and all-cause death) (3.3% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: ABSORB BVS for the treatment of complex lesions appears to be associated with good procedural and early clinical outcomes similar to those observed with conventional drug-eluting stents. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are required in order to fully assess the role of BVS in the treatment of such lesions and how this compares with that of conventional stents. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparison of abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary bifurcations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting (BES) with abluminal drug elution and durable polymer everolimus-eluting (EES) stents in the treatment of bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND: The persistence of a polymer in drug-eluting stents (DES) following drug elution has been viewed as a possible culprit for restenosis. DES with biodegradable polymer may thus be associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in high-risk lesions such as those at bifurcation sites. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of consecutive de novo bifurcation lesions treated with EES between October 2006 and October 2011 and BES between February 2008 and March 2012. Study endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), including peri-procedural MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) as well as target lesion revascularization (TLR) separately. RESULTS: We analyzed 236 bifurcation lesions treated with either BES (79 lesions in 69 patients) or EES (157 lesions in 154 patients). Patient and procedural characteristics were broadly similar between the two groups. Estimated MACE and TVR rates at 2-year follow-up were similar between the BES and EES groups (MACE = 13.6 ± 4.6% vs. 14.6 ± 3.2% (P = 0.871); TVR = 6.9 ± 3.5% vs. 8.0 ± 2.7% (P = 0.889). No significant differences were noted between the two groups following propensity-score matched analysis. There was no probable or definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: BES use in the treatment of bifurcation lesions appears to be associated with good clinical outcomes, comparable to those seen with EES, at long-term follow-up. These results are hypothesis-generating and need to be validated with larger studies.

Comparison of paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon and paclitaxel-eluting stent in small coronary vessels in diabetic and nondiabetic patients - results from the BELLO (balloon elution and late loss optimization) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of diabetes on the efficacy of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for the reduction of restenosis in small vessels according to the presence of diabetes in patients enrolled in the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) trial. BACKGROUND: Small vessel disease is common in diabetic patients but currently there are no available data regarding DEB in these patients. METHODS: In the BELLO trial, 182 patients with lesions in small vessels were randomized 1:1 to receive DEB or PES. In the current sub analysis, patients were stratified according to the presence of diabetes. The diabetic group consisted of 74 patients (DEB=39, PES=35) and the nondiabetic group of 108 patients (DEB=51, PES=57). Angiographic endpoints examined were in-stent/in-balloon and in-segment late loss and binary restenosis at 6 months. Clinical endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) at 1 year. RESULTS: In-stent/in-balloon late loss was significantly less with DEB as compared to PES in both diabetic (0.05±0.41 vs. 0.30±0.51mm, p=0.033) and nondiabetic patients (0.10±0.36 vs. 0.29±0.40mm, p=0.015). In patients with diabetes, angiographic restenosis and in-segment late loss were significantly lower with DEB as compared to PES (respectively, 6.3% vs. 25.0%; p=0.039 and -0.013±0.39 vs. 0.25±0.53; p=0.023), with no differences noted in nondiabetic patients. The cumulative MACE rate at 1 year was similar between DEB and PES in both the diabetic (13.2% vs. 25%, p=0.194) and nondiabetic groups (11.8% vs. 14.3%, p=0.699). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes does not appear to have a negative impact on the efficacy of DEB in small vessels, which were associated with better angiographic outcomes at 6 months in this complex subgroup. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Drug-eluting balloon versus second-generation drug-eluting stent for the treatment of restenotic lesions involving coronary bifurcations.

AIMS: To report clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) involving a bifurcation lesion. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between February 2007 and November 2012, 167 bifurcation restenoses in 158 patients were treated with either DEB (n=73) or second-generation DES (n=85). The EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the DEB group (4.2±3.8 vs. 2.8±2.1, p=0.004). Regarding restenosed stent type, second-generation DES was more frequently seen in the DEB group (26.9% vs. 6.7%, p<0.001). In this group, there was also a trend towards more frequent stenting for a previous ISR (stent-in-stent) as compared with the DES group (25.6% vs. 15.6%, p=0.074). Over a median follow-up period of 701 days, there was no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction including periprocedural myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, between the two groups (p=0.585). Independent predictors of MACE on multivariate Cox regression analysis included stent-in-stent (HR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.11 to 4.20; p=0.023) and true bifurcation lesions (HR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.45 to 6.14; p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DEB for bifurcation restenosis may be an acceptable treatment option, especially in cases where repeat stenting has not already been performed for the treatment of a previous restenosis.

Drug-coated balloons in interventional cardiology.

Over the last few years, drug-coated balloon (DCB) therapy has emerged as a promising therapeutic intervention for the management of obstructive cardiovascular disease. The dictum of this novel technology is that effective prevention of restenosis can be achieved by the short-term transfer of antiproliferative drug to local arterial tissue by means of a single prolonged balloon angioplasty dilatation. Its main attraction is that no foreign body is implanted eliminating thus the risk of late inflammatory response to device components without preventing positive remodeling. Here, we discuss the evidence regarding the effectiveness of DCB in different lesion types and clinical settings as well as the types of DCB commercially available or under development.

Looking into the future with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.

Bioresorbable scaffold technology has evolved over the last few years with a number of devices either available or under clinical and preclinical investigation. The absence of a permanent metallic segment in the treated vessel wall has the potential to address some of the issues still encountered with metallic drug-eluting stents despite improvements in stent platform, polymer and drug elution. Here, the authors review currently available bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery use, concentrating on both completed and ongoing preclinical and clinical studies, evaluating their use. The authors also discuss the potential advantages as well as challenges that these novel devices may face in routine clinical practice.

Newly available and recent advances in drug-eluting stents.

The introduction of drug-eluting stents has revolutionized the treatment of coronary artery disease. First-generation stents, however, were associated with relatively high revascularization rates and the risk of stent thrombosis. This has led to a worldwide search for improvements in stent technology that will reduce adverse cardiac events following stent implantation while providing optimal treatment. Here, the authors discuss recent advances in stent technology from improvements in stent platform and stent polymer to newer mechanisms of drug delivery and the incorporation of proendothelizing agents. The authors also introduce some of the newly available stents and discuss the evidence associated with their use in clinical practice.

The role of drug-eluting balloons alone or in combination with drug-eluting stents in the treatment of de novo diffuse coronary disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the role of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) alone or in combination with drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of diffuse de novo coronary artery disease (CAD) (>25 mm). BACKGROUND: The use of DEB in diffuse CAD, either alone or in combination with DES, offers an alternative to stenting alone. Data regarding DEB in this context are limited. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all patients treated with DEB for diffuse CAD between June 2009 and October 2012. Endpoints analyzed were major adverse cardiac events, defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), as well as TVR and target lesion revascularization separately. Results were compared with those obtained from a cohort of patients with similar characteristics treated with DES alone. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients (93 lesions) were treated with DEB ± DES, and 93 patients with DES alone (93 lesions). A high proportion of patients were diabetic (46.4% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.77). Of the DEB-treated lesions, 56.0% were treated with DEB alone, 7.4% with DEB and DES as bail out, and 36.6% with DES and DEB as part of a hybrid approach for very long disease. Outcome rates with DEB ± DES were comparable to those with DES alone at 2-year follow-up (major adverse cardiac events = 20.8% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.74; TVR = 14.8% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.44; target lesion revascularization = 9.6% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: DEB may have a role in the treatment of diffuse de novo CAD, either alone in smaller vessels or in combination with DES in very long disease.