Impact of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloons Compared to Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for of In-Stent Restenosis in a Primarily Acute Coronary Syndrome Population.

BACKGROUND: The place of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) is not well-defined, particularly in a population of all-comers with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). OBJECTIVE: Compare the clinical outcomes of DEB with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of ISR in a real-world population with a high proportion of ACS. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with ISR treated with a DEB compared to patients treated with a second-generation DES was performed. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization). Comparisons were performed using Cox proportional hazards multivariate adjustment and Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank. RESULTS: The cohort included 91 patients treated with a DEB and 89 patients treated with a DES (74% ACS). Median follow-up was 26 months. MACE occurred in 33 patients (36%) in the DEB group, compared to 17 patients (19%) in the DES group (p log-rank = 0.02). After multivariate adjustment, there was no significant difference between the groups (HR for DEB = 1.45 [95%CI: 0.75-2.83]; p = 0.27). Mortality rates at 1 year were 11% with DEB, and 3% with DES (p = 0.04; adjusted HR = 2.85 [95%CI: 0.98-8.32]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: In a population with a high proportion of ACS, a non-significant numerical signal towards increased rates of MACE with DEB compared to second-generation DES for the treatment of ISR was observed, mainly driven by a higher mortality rate. An adequately-powered randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm these findings.

Impact of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloons Compared to Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for of In-Stent Restenosis in a Primarily Acute Coronary Syndrome Population / Impacto dos Balões de Eluição de Paclitaxel Comparados a Stents Farmacológicos de Segunda Geração para Reestenose Intra-Stent em uma População com Síndrome Coronária Aguda Primária

Abstract Background: The place of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) is not well-defined, particularly in a population of all-comers with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Objective: Compare the clinical outcomes of DEB with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of ISR in a real-world population with a high proportion of ACS. Methods: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with ISR treated with a DEB compared to patients treated with a second-generation DES was performed. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization). Comparisons were performed using Cox proportional hazards multivariate adjustment and Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank. Results: The cohort included 91 patients treated with a DEB and 89 patients treated with a DES (74% ACS). Median follow-up was 26 months. MACE occurred in 33 patients (36%) in the DEB group, compared to 17 patients (19%) in the DES group (p log-rank = 0.02). After multivariate adjustment, there was no significant difference between the groups (HR for DEB = 1.45 [95%CI: 0.75-2.83]; p = 0.27). Mortality rates at 1 year were 11% with DEB, and 3% with DES (p = 0.04; adjusted HR = 2.85 [95%CI: 0.98-8.32]; p = 0.06). Conclusion: In a population with a high proportion of ACS, a non-significant numerical signal towards increased rates of MACE with DEB compared to second-generation DES for the treatment of ISR was observed, mainly driven by a higher mortality rate. An adequately-powered randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm these findings.

Resumo Fundamento: O papel de balões farmacológicos (BFs) no tratamento de reestenose intra-stent (RIS) não está bem definido, particularmente em na síndrome coronária aguda (SCA). Objetivo: Comparar desfechos clínicos do uso de BF com stents farmacológicos (SFs) de segunda geração no tratamento de RIS em uma população real com alta prevalência de SCA. Métodos: Foi realizada uma análise retrospectiva de pacientes consecutivos com RIS tratados com um BF comparados a pacientes tratados com SF de segunda geração. O desfecho primário incluiu eventos cardiovasculares adversos importantes (morte por todas as causas, infarto do miocárdio não fatal, e revascularização da lesão alvo). As comparações foram realizadas pelo modelo proporcional de riscos de Cox ajustado e análise de Kaplan-Meier com log-rank. Resultados: A coorte incluiu 91 pacientes tratados com BF e 89 pacientes tratados com um SF (75% com SCA). O tempo mediano de acompanhamento foi de 26 meses. Eventos cardiovasculares adversos importantes ocorreram em 33 pacientes (36%) no grupo BF, e em 17 (19%) no grupo SF (p log-rank = 0,02). Após ajuste multivariado, não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos (HR para BF = 1,45 [IC95%: 0,75-2,83]; p = 0,27). As taxas de mortalidade de 1 ano foram 11% com BF, e 3% com SF (p = 0,04; HR ajustado = 2,85 [IC95%: 0,98-8,32; p = 0,06). Conclusão: Em uma população com alta prevalência de SCA, observou-se um aumento não significativo nas taxas de eventos cardiovasculares adversos importantes com o uso de BF comparado ao uso de SF de segunda geração para o tratamento de RIS, principalmente pelo aumento na taxa de mortalidade. É necessário um ensaio clínico controlado, randomizado, com poder estatístico adequado para confirmar esses achados.

Conversion after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: the CORONARY trial experience

OBJECTIVES: Emergent and late conversions form OFF-to-ON pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been associated with worse outcomes, however, it remains unclear as to which risk factors are associated with conversion and how to prevent them. METHODS: Among 4718 patients who randomly underwent off- or on-pump CABG, the incidence of off-pump to on-pump cross-over, or 'OFF-to-ON conversion', was 7.9% (186/2356). The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis. We assessed the risk factors and outcomes of converted patients. RESULTS: Emergent OFF-to-ON conversions, defined as conversions for hypotension or ischaemia, were required for 3.2% of patients ( n  = 75), while most elective conversions were due to small or intramuscular coronaries ( n  = 83). OFF-to-ON converted patients required increased surgery time, blood transfusions, intensive care unit stay, and presented a higher incidence at 1 year of the composite outcome compared with non-converted off-pump patients (all P < 0.01), especially if the conversion was emergent. Conversely, elective conversions outcomes were no different compared with non-converted off-pump patients ( P  = 0.35). Independent predictors of emergent conversions included higher heart rate or chronic atrial fibrillation, urgent surgery, more grafts planned and surgeon experience with off-pump CABG...