Outcomes With Limus- vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the outcomes with limus drug-coated balloons (DCBs) vs paclitaxel DCBs were small and underpowered for clinical endpoints. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes with limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed through January 2024 for RCTs comparing limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for PCI. The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were late angiographic findings. Summary estimates were constructed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 821 patients were included; 446 patients received a limus DCB, and 375 patients received a paclitaxel DCB. There was no difference between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs in the incidence of TLR at a mean of 13.4 months (10.3% vs 7.8%; risk ratio [RR]: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant interaction among studies for de novo coronary lesions vs in-stent restenosis (Pinteraction = 0.58). There were no differences in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiac mortality, or target vessel myocardial infarction between groups. However, limus DCBs were associated with a higher risk of binary restenosis (RR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.14-3.12), late lumen loss (mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28), and a smaller minimum lumen diameter (mean difference = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02) at late follow-up. In addition, late lumen enlargement occurred more frequently (50% vs 27.5%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) with paclitaxel DCBs. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing DCB-only PCI, there were no differences in the risk of clinically driven TLR and other clinical outcomes between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs. However, paclitaxel DCBs were associated with better late angiographic outcomes. These findings support the need for future trials to establish the role of new-generation limus DCBs for PCI.

Temporal Trends in the Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Zotarolimus Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus Eluting Stents: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term follow-up results of various trials comparing Zotarolimus eluting stents (ZES) with Everolimus eluting stents (EES) have been published recently. Additionally, over the last decade, there have been new trials comparing the ZES with various commercially available EES. We aim to conduct an updated meta-analysis in light of new evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide comprehensive evidence regarding the temporal trends in the clinical outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. RCTs comparing ZES with EES for short (<2 years), intermediate (2-3 years), and long-term follow-ups (3-5 years) were included. Relative risk was used to pool the dichotomous outcomes using the random effects model employing the inverse variance method. All statistical analysis was conducted using Revman 5.4. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies reporting data at different follow-ups for nine trials (n = 14319) were included. At short-term follow-up (<2 years), there were no significant differences between the two types of stents (all-cause death, cardiac death, Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis or safety outcomes (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, target vessel failure, target lesion failure). At intermediate follow-up (2-3 years), EES was superior to ZES for reducing target lesion revascularization (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.05-1.58, p < 0.05). At long-term follow-up (3-5 years), there were no significant differences between the two groups for any of the pooled outcomes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: ZES and EES have similar safety and efficacy at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-ups.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons in chronic total coronary occlusion recanalization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: With advancements in chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) recanalization techniques and concepts, the success rate of recanalization has been steadily increasing. However, the current data are too limited to draw any reliable conclusions about the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to confirm the efficacy of DCB in CTO PCI. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to July 25, 2023. The primary outcome was major advent cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The follow-up angiographic endpoints were late lumen enlargement (LLE), reocclusion and restenosis. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 511 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, patients were predominantly male (72.9-85.7%) and over fifty years old. The summary estimate rate of MACE was 13.0% (95% CI 10.1%-15.9%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.428). The summary estimate rates of cardiac death and MI were 2.2% (95% CI 0.7%-3.7%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.873) and 1.2% (95% CI -0.2-2.6%, I2 = 13.7%, p = 0.314), respectively. Finally, the pooled incidences of TLR and TVR were 10.1% (95% CI 5.7%-14.5%, I2 = 51.7%, p = 0.082) and 7.1% (95% CI 3.0%-11.2%, I2 = 57.6%, p = 0.070), respectively. Finally, the summary estimate rates of LLE, reocclusion and restenosis were 59.4% (95% CI 53.5-65.3%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.742), 3.3% (95% CI 1.1-5.4%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.865) and 17.5% (95% CI 12.9-22.0%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.623), respectively. CONCLUSION: Accordingly, DCB has the potential to be used as a treatment for CTO in suitable patients.

A Novel Sirolimus-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Lesions: The SELUTION SFA Japan Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal (FP) lesions have not been systematically studied, but initial outcomes from early studies are promising. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the SELUTION SLR SCB, composed of proprietary microreservoir technology combining sirolimus and biodegradable polymer, when used to treat mild-to-moderate FP disease in a Japanese population. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm study (SELUTION SFA JAPAN) enrolled 134 patients with FP disease. It was independently adjudicated by an imaging core laboratory and clinical events committee. The primary endpoint was 12-month primary patency, defined as peak systolic velocity ratio ≥2.5 by duplex ultrasound and compared against a prespecified performance goal of 60% based on established angioplasty data. RESULTS: The mean age was 73.8 ± 6.9 years, and 60.3% of patients had diabetes mellitus. The mean lesion length was 127.4 ± 59.7 mm, 17.2% were chronic total occlusions, and 47.8% involved the popliteal artery. Data on 12-month restenosis were available in 127 patients (94.8%). The 12-month primary patency rate was 87.9%, and the freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) was 97.0% per Kaplan-Meier estimate. The major adverse event rate was 6.7%, driven by 4 CD-TLRs and 5 deaths, none of which were related to the device or procedure. Ankle-brachial index data improved significantly from 0.73 ± 0.16 at baseline to 0.96 ± 0.14 at 30 days postprocedure and was sustained through 12 months (0.94 ± 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The SELUTION SFA JAPAN trial demonstrated that a novel SELUTION SCB is a safe and effective treatment option for FP disease in symptomatic patients.

Intravascular Ultrasound vs Angiography-Guided Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty: The ULTIMATE â ¢ Trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty seems a safe and effective option for specific de novo coronary lesions. However, the beneficial effect of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided DCB angioplasty in de novo lesions remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the benefits of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance during DCB angioplasty in de novo coronary lesions. METHODS: A total of 260 patients with high bleeding risk who had a de novo coronary lesion (reference vessel diameter 2.0-4.0 mm, and lesion length ≤15 mm) were randomly assigned to either an IVUS-guided or an angioplasty-guided DCB angioplasty group. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 7 months after procedure. The secondary endpoint was target vessel failure at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 2 patients in the angiography-guided group and 7 patients in the IVUS-guided group underwent bailout stent implantation (P = 0.172). The primary endpoint of 7-month LLL was 0.03 ± 0.52 mm with angiography guidance vs -0.10 ± 0.34 mm with IVUS guidance (mean difference 0.14 mm; 95% CI: 0.02-0.26; P = 0.025). IVUS guidance was also associated with a larger 7-month minimal lumen diameter (2.06 ± 0.62 mm vs 1.75 ± 0.63 mm; P < 0.001) and a smaller diameter stenosis (28.15% ± 13.88% vs 35.83% ± 17.69%; P = 0.001) compared with angiography guidance. Five target vessel failures occurred at 6 months, with 4 (3.1%) in the angiography-guided group and 1 (0.8%) in the IVUS-guided group (P = 0.370). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that IVUS-guided DCB angioplasty is associated with a lower LLL in patients with a de novo coronary lesion compared with angiography guidance. (Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography Guided Drug-Coated Balloon [ULTIMATE-III]; NCT04255043).

Drug-coated balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting versus primary stenting for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions: REC-CAGEFREE I trial rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with primary stenting, which stands for stent implantation regardless of obtaining satisfactory results with balloon angioplasty, has superseded conventional plain old balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting. With drug-coated balloon (DCB), primary DCB angioplasty with provisional stenting has shown non-inferiority to primary stenting for de novo coronary small vessel disease. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of such a strategy to the primary stenting on clinical endpoints in de novo lesions without vessel diameter restrictions remain uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: The REC-CAGEFREE I is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial aimed to enroll 2270 patients with acute or chronic coronary syndrome from 43 interventional cardiology centers in China to evaluate the non-inferiority of primary paclitaxel-coated balloons angioplasty to primary stenting for the treatment of de novo, non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. Patients who fulfill all the inclusion and exclusion criteria and have achieved a successful lesion pre-dilatation will be randomly assigned to the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. Protocol-guided DCB angioplasty and bailout stenting after unsatisfactory angioplasty are mandatory in the primary DCB angioplasty group. The second-generation sirolimus-eluting stent will be used as a bailout stent in the primary DCB angioplasty group and the treatment device in the primary stenting group. The primary endpoint is the incidence of Device-oriented Composite Endpoint (DoCE) within 24 months after randomization, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically and physiologically indicated target lesion revascularization. DISCUSSION: The ongoing REC-CAGEFREE I trial is the first randomized trial with a clinical endpoint to assess the efficacy and safety of primary DCB angioplasty for the treatment of de novo, non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. If non-inferiority is shown, PCI with primary DCB angioplasty could be an alternative treatment option to primary stenting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04561739).

Randomized Trial Comparing a Stent-Avoiding With a Stent-Preferred Strategy in Complex Femoropopliteal Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Limited comparative data exist on different interventional strategies for endovascular revascularization of complex femoropopliteal interventions. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors aimed to compare a stent-avoiding (SA) vs a stent-preferred (SP) strategy, promoting optimal lesion preparation and the use of drug-eluting technologies in both arms. METHODS: Within a prospective, multicenter, pilot study, 120 patients with symptomatic complex femoropopliteal lesions (Rutherford classification 2-4, mean lesion length 187.7 ± 78.3 mm, 79.2% total occlusions) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to endovascular treatment with either paclitaxel-coated balloons or polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stents. Lesion preparation including the use of devices for plaque modification and/or removal was at the operators' discretion in both treatment arms. RESULTS: In the SA group, lesion preparation was more frequently performed (71.7% SA [43/60] vs 51.7% [31/60] SP; P = 0.038) with a high provisional stenting rate (48.3% [29/60]). At the 12-month follow-up, primary patency was 78.2% (43/55) in the SA group and 78.6% (44/56) in the SP group (P = 1.0; relative risk: 0.995; 95% CI: 0.818-1.210). Freedom from major adverse events was determined in 93.1% (54/58) in the SA group and in 94.9% (56/59) in the SP group (P = 0.717; relative risk: 0.981; 95% CI: 0.895-1.075), with all adverse events attributable to clinically driven target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Both endovascular strategies promoting lesion preparation before the use of drug-eluting devices suggest promising efficacy and safety results in complex femoropopliteal procedures with a high proportion of total occlusions through 12 months. Ongoing follow-up will show whether different results emerge over time. (Best Endovascular Strategy for Complex Lesions of the Superficial Femoral Artery [BEST-SFA]; NCT03776799).

Final 5-year report of BIONYX comparing the thin-composite wire-strut zotarolimus-eluting stent versus ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent.

BACKGROUND: The BIONYX randomized trial is the first study to evaluate the Resolute Onyx durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in all-comers. Furthermore, it is the first trial to assess safety and efficacy of this stent versus the Orsiro biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers, paying particular attention to patients with diabetes. It has previously shown promising results until 3 years of follow-up. AIMS: We aimed to assess long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Onyx ZES versus Orsiro SES at 5-year follow-up. METHODS: The main composite endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF): cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Time to primary and secondary endpoints was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, applying the log-rank test for between-group comparison. RESULTS: Follow-up was available in 2414/2488 (97.0%) patients. After 5 years, TVF showed no significant difference between Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES (12.7% vs. 13.7%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.75-1.17], plog-rank = 0.55). Landmark analysis between 3- and 5-year follow-up found a lower target lesion revascularization rate for Onyx ZES (1.1% vs. 2.4%, HR 0.47, 95% CI [0.24-0.93], plog-rank = 0.026). A prespecified subgroup analysis showed no significant between-stent difference in clinical outcome among patients with diabetes. After treatment with Onyx ZES, patients aged ≥75 years had significantly lower rates of TVF (13.8% vs. 21.9%, HR 0.60, 95% CI [0.39-0.93], plog-rank = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The final 5-year analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial showed favorable and similar long-term outcomes of safety and efficacy for Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES in both all-comers and patients with diabetes.

Biolimus-coated versus paclitaxel-coated balloons for coronary in-stent restenosis (BIO ASCEND ISR): a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains challenging in current clinical practice. AIMS: The study was conducted to investigate a novel biolimus-coated balloon (BCB) for the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with the best-investigated paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing a novel BCB with a clinically proven PCB for coronary DES-ISR. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months assessed by an independent core laboratory. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography were performed in a prespecified subgroup of patients. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients at 17 centres were randomised to treatment with a BCB (n=140) versus a PCB (n=140). At 9 months, LLL in the BCB group was 0.23±0.37 mm compared to 0.25±0.35 mm in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.12 to 0.07) mm; p-value for non-inferiority<0.0001. Similar clinical outcomes were also observed for both groups at 12 months. In the optical coherence tomography substudy, the neointimal area at 9 months was 2.32±1.04 mm2 in the BCB group compared to 2.37±0.93 mm2 in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.09 (95% CI: -0.94 to 0.76) mm2; p=non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison of a novel BCB shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04733443).

Biodegradable Polymer Versus Polymer-Free Ultrathin Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Analysis of the Stent Arm Registry From the HOST-IDEA Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of each third-generation drug-eluting stent with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology remain unclear. We investigated the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention using the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or Orsiro biodegradable polymer SES. METHODS: The HOST-IDEA trial (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-Coronary Intervention With Next-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms and Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), initially designed with a 2×2 factorial approach, sought to randomize patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention based on dual antiplatelet therapy duration (3 versus 12 months) and stent type (Coroflex ISAR versus Orsiro). Despite randomizing 2013 patients for dual antiplatelet therapy duration, the stent arm transitioned to a registry format during the trial. Among these, 328 individuals (16.3%) were randomized for Coroflex ISAR or Orsiro SES, while 1685 (83.7%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention without stent-type randomization. In this study, the Coroflex ISAR (n=559) and Orsiro groups (n=1449) were matched using a propensity score. The prespecified primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months. RESULTS: The baseline patient and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the Coroflex ISAR and Orsiro groups after propensity score matching (n=559, each group). The Coroflex ISAR group was significantly associated with a higher rate of target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, compared with the Orsiro group (3.4% versus 1.1%; hazard ratio, 3.21 [95% CI, 1.28-8.05]; P=0.01). A higher risk of target lesion failure in the Coroflex ISAR group was consistently observed across various subgroups. The rates of any bleeding (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.51-1.40]; P=0.52) and major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.61-4.08]; P=0.34) were comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis of the stent arm registry from the HOST-IDEA trial, the Orsiro SES was associated with significantly better outcomes in terms of 1-year target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, than the Coroflex ISAR SES. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02601157.

Drug-Coated Balloons in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease.

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are specialized coronary devices comprised of a semicompliant balloon catheter with an engineered coating that allows the delivery of antiproliferative agents locally to the vessel wall during percutaneous coronary intervention. Although DCBs were initially developed more than a decade ago, their potential in coronary interventions has recently sparked renewed interest, especially in the United States. Originally designed to overcome the limitations of conventional balloon angioplasty and stenting, they aim to match or even improve upon the outcomes of drug-eluting stents without leaving a permanent implant. Presently, in-stent restenosis is the condition with the most robust evidence supporting the use of DCBs. DCBs provide improved long-term vessel patency compared with conventional balloon angioplasty and may be comparable to drug-eluting stents without the need for an additional stent layer, supporting their use as a first-line therapy for in-stent restenosis. Beyond the treatment of in-stent restenosis, DCBs provide an additional tool for de novo lesions for a strategy that avoids a permanent metal scaffold, which may be especially useful for the management of technically challenging anatomies such as small vessels and bifurcations. DCBs might also be advantageous for patients with high bleeding risk due to the decreased necessity for extended antiplatelet therapy, and in patients with diabetes and patients with diffuse disease to minimize long-stented segments. Further studies are crucial to confirm these broader applications for DCBs and to further validate safety and efficacy.

Comparison of Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloons versus Plain Balloons in Secondary Interventions on Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistulae.

PURPOSE: To compare patency and reintervention outcomes after either plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) or drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) for venous stenoses after percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred ninety-five pAVFs were successfully created during the study period, 141 using Ellipsys and 54 using Wavelinq. After pAVF creation, 95 patients (48.7%) required secondary percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with either POBA (n = 55, 58%) or DCBA (n = 40, 42.1%). The most common site for PTA was the juxta-anastomotic segment (75.5%; 74/98). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare target lesion primary patency, access circuit primary patency, secondary patency, and reintervention rates in the POBA and DCBA cohorts. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 55 (62%) patients in the POBA cohort and 14 of 40 (35%) patients in the DCBA cohort required reinterventions for pAVF restenosis. Mean number of follow-up days among patients treated with POBA was 1,030.4 (SD ± 342.9) and among those treated with DCBA was 744.4 (SD ± 403.5). The use of POBA compared with DCBA was not associated with target lesion and access circuit primary patency loss in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; 95% CI, 0.93-3.51; P = .080; and HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.73-4.28; P = .210, respectively). However, time from fistula creation to the first PTA (days) was statistically significantly associated with both outcomes (HR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.994-0.999; P = .009; and HR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.992-0.999; P = .021, respectively). There were no major adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective single-center analysis of pAVFs, considerably more patients who underwent PTA with POBA after pAVF creation required reinterventions compared with PTA using DCBA, although the follow-up time of POBA was longer. In multivariate analysis, no differences were noted in the hazard of patency loss between POBA and DCBA.

Performance of drug-coated balloons in coronary and below-the-knee arteries: Anatomical, physiological and pathological considerations.

Below-the-knee (infrapopliteal) atherosclerotic disease, which presents as chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in nearly 50% of patients, represents a treatment challenge when it comes to the endovascular intervention arm of management. Due to reduced tissue perfusion, patients usually experience pain at rest and atrophic changes correlated to the extent of the compromised perfusion. Unfortunately, the prognosis remains unsatisfactory with 30% of patients requiring major amputation and a mortality rate of 25% within 1 year. To date, randomized multicentre trials of endovascular intervention have shown that drug-eluting stents (DES) increase patency rate and lower target lesion revascularization rate compared to plain balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents. The majority of these trials recruited patients with focal infrapopliteal lesions, while most patients requiring endovascular intervention have complex and diffuse atherosclerotic disease. Moreover, due to the nature of the infrapopliteal arteries, the use of long DES is limited. Following recent results of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of femoropopliteal and coronary arteries, it was hoped that similar effective results would be achieved in the infrapopliteal arteries. In reality, multicentre trials have failed to support the proposed hypothesis and no advantage was found in using DCBs in comparison to plain balloon angioplasty. This review aims to explore anatomical, physiological and pathological differences between lesions of the infrapopliteal and coronary arteries to explain the differences in outcome when using DCBs.

Outcomes of Excimer Laser Ablation Combined with Drug-coated Balloon in Atherosclerotic Lesions of the Popliteal Artery.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of atherosclerotic lesions in the popliteal artery is challenging. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of excimer laser ablation (ELA) combined with drug-coated balloon (DCB) for these lesions. METHODS: From June 2019 to December 2021, data of patients who underwent ELA combined with DCB in the popliteal artery were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, lesion characteristics, periprocedural complications, and follow-up information were analyzed. The primary endpoint was primary patency. Secondary endpoints included major amputation-free survival rate, technical success, bailout stenting, clinically-driven target lesion reintervention, improvement of ankle-brachial index (ABI), and Rutherford class. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 73.4 ± 11.7 years. 20 (32.8%) patients had stenotic lesions, while 41 (67.2%) patients had chronic total occlusions. The mean length of these lesions was 7.3 ± 2.8 cm. Procedure technical success rate was 95.1%. Bailout stent was performed in 3 (4.9%) patients. Intraprocedural distal embolization occurred in 3 (4.9%) patients, while flow limiting dissections occurred in 3 (4.9%) patients. The mean ABI was significantly improved from 0.45 ± 0.13 at baseline to 0.90 ± 0.12 after ELA, 0.88 ± 0.11 at 6 months and 0.85 ± 0.12 at 12 months during the follow-up period. The median follow-up time was 28.2 ± 6.1 months. Reintervention was performed in 5 (8.2%) patients. The 2-year primary patency was 83.5%. CONCLUSIONS: ELA combined with DCB is a safe and effective strategy in the treatment of popliteal artery atherosclerotic lesions with low rates of bail-out stenting and high primary patency.

Difference in one-year late lumen loss between high- and low-dose paclitaxel-coated balloons for femoropopliteal disease.

The objective of the study is to investigate the difference in 1-year late lumen loss (LLL) between the high- (IN.PACT Admiral) and low-dose (Lutonix) paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB). Although a recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated no difference in efficacy endpoint between high- and low-dose PCB, it remains unclear whether high-dose PCB was superior to low-dose PCB in actual clinical practice. We enrolled 64 patients with 67 de novo femoropopliteal lesions who underwent PCB angioplasty at Kokura Memorial Hospital from May 2014 to March 2020 and subsequent follow-up angiography after 1 year. The primary endpoint was 1-year LLL, whereas the secondary endpoints were binary restenosis and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) after 1 year. The high- and low-dose PCB groups had 45 and 22 lesions, respectively. Although the low-dose PCB group had higher rates of coronary artery disease, hemodialysis, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia than the high-dose PCB group, the latter had a longer lesion length and more lesions with a TASC classification C or D than the former. The high-dose PCB group had a significantly lower LLL than the low-dose PCB group (0.40 ± 1.05 vs. 1.19 ± 1.03 mm; P = 0.003, respectively). Moreover, the high-dose PCB group had significantly lower rates of binary restenosis at 1 year than the low-dose PCB group (22.2% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.02, respectively). Moreover, negative LLL was only observed in the high-dose PCB group (33.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.005). The high-dose PCB group had a significantly lower LLL than the low-dose PCB group.