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.

One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Chronic and Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated With Bioresorbable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents.

There is a paucity of data regarding the safety of a 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients at HBR with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) or ACS treated with PCI using bioresorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (BP-EES) followed by 1-month DAPT. Patients at HBR who underwent PCI with BP-EES were prospectively enrolled in 10 Italian centers. All patients were treated with 1-month DAPT. In case of need for anticoagulation, patients received an oral anticoagulant in addition to a P2Y12 inhibitor for 1 month, followed by oral anticoagulation only after that. The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite/probable stent thrombosis at 12 months. Overall, 263 patients (59.4%) with CCS and 180 patients (40.6%) with ACS were enrolled. No significant difference was evident between patients with CCS and ACS for the primary end point (4.3% vs 5.6%, respectively, p = 0.497) and for each isolated component. The risk for Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 1 to 5 or type 3 to 5 bleedings was also similar between patients with CCS and ACS (4.3% vs 5.2%, p = 0.677, and 1.6% vs 2.9%, p = 0.351, respectively). In conclusion, among HBR patients with ACS who underwent PCI with BP-EES, a 1-month DAPT strategy is associated with a similar risk of ischemic and bleeding events compared with those with CCS.

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.