Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A prospective, multi-center, randomised controlled trial for evaluation of the effectiveness of the Blimp scoring balloon in lesions not crossable with a conventional balloon or microcatheter: the BLIMP study.
Dens, J; Holvoet, W; McCutcheon, K; Ungureanu, C; Coussement, P; Haine, S; De Hemptinne, Q; Sonck, J; Eertmans, W; Bennett, J.
Affiliation
  • Dens J; Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
  • Holvoet W; Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
  • McCutcheon K; Department of Cardiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
  • Ungureanu C; Department of Cardiology, Hôpital de Jolimont, La Louvière, Belgium.
  • Coussement P; Department of Cardiology, AZ Sint-Jan, Brugge, Belgium.
  • Haine S; Department of Cardiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen, Edegem, Belgium.
  • De Hemptinne Q; Department of Cardiology, Universitair Medisch Centrum, Bruxelles, Belgium.
  • Sonck J; Department of Cardiology, Onze-Lieve-vrouwziekenhuis Aalst, Aalst, Belgium.
  • Eertmans W; Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
  • Bennett J; Department of Cardiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
Acta Cardiol ; 78(1): 86-90, 2023 Feb.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35972446
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Balloon uncrossable coronary lesions are lesions that cannot be crossed with a conventional balloon. Multiple balloons have been designed to overcome this problem. The Blimp balloon has a very low scoring profile (0.6 mm) with a very high rated burst pressure (30 atmospheres). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this balloon compared to customary low-profile balloons.

METHODS:

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which 126 patients with an uncrossable lesion were randomly (11 randomization) assigned to treatment first with the Blimp balloon or low-profile balloon. The primary endpoint was the success of crossing the lesion after initial failure with a microcatheter (group A) or with a conventional balloon (group B).

RESULTS:

Overall, the first attempt of Blimp was successful in 29 out of 61 cases (48%) while the LP balloon immediately crossed in 30 out 67 cases (45%; p = 0.761). Using a low-profile balloon in the BLIMP group after failure of the Blimp balloon increased the success to 64% (39 out of 61 cases). Using the Blimp balloon in the low-profile first group after failure of the low-profile balloon increased the success to 60% (40 out of 67 cases). After the placement of a guide catheter extension, the overall successful lesion crossing in the BLIMP group was 80% (49 out of 61 cases) compared to 76% (51 out of 67 cases) in the LP Balloon group (p = 0.327).

CONCLUSIONS:

The Blimp balloon catheter showed no superiority to customary low-profile balloons in uncrossable lesions. It can however be complementary in treating uncrossable lesions.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Coronary Occlusion Type of study: Clinical_trials Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Acta Cardiol Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Coronary Occlusion Type of study: Clinical_trials Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Acta Cardiol Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: