Drug-coated balloons for the treatment of ostial left anterior descending or ostial left circumflex artery lesions: a patient-level propensity score-matched analysis.
10.26599/1671-5411.2023.10.005
- Author:
Liang PAN
1
;
Wen-Jie LU
1
;
Zhan-Ying HAN
1
;
San-Cong PAN
2
;
Xi WANG
1
;
Ying-Guang SHAN
1
;
Meng PENG
1
;
Xiao-Fei QIN
1
;
Guo-Ju SUN
1
;
Pei-Sheng ZHANG
3
;
Jian-Zeng DONG
1
;
Chun-Guang QIU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
2. Department of Cardiology, Jincheng People's Hospital, Jincheng, China.
3. Department of Cardiology, the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- From:
Journal of Geriatric Cardiology
2023;20(10):716-727
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Controversy exists as to the optimal treatment approach for ostial left anterior descending (LAD) or ostial left circumflex artery (LCx) lesions. Drug-coated balloons (DCB) may overcome some of the limitations of drug-eluting stents (DES). Therefore, we investigated the security and feasibility of the DCB policy in patients with ostial LAD or ostial LCx lesions, and compared it with the conventional DES-only strategy.
METHODS:We retrospectively enrolled patients with de novo ostial lesions in the LAD or LCx who underwent interventional treatment. They were categorized into two groups based on their treatment approach: the DCB group and the DES group. The treatment strategies in the DCB group involved the use of either DCB-only or hybrid strategies, whereas the DES group utilized crossover or precise stenting techniques. Two-year target lesion revascularization was the primary endpoint, while the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and vessel thrombosis were the secondary endpoints. Using propensity score matching, we assembled a cohort with comparable baseline characteristics. To ensure result analysis reliability, we conducted sensitivity analyses, including interaction, and stratified analyses.
RESULTS:Among the 397 eligible patients, 6.25% of patients who were planned to undergo DCB underwent DES. A total of 108 patients in each group had comparable propensity scores and were included in the analysis. Two-year target lesion revascularization occurred in 5 patients (4.90%) and 16 patients (16.33%) in the DCB group and the DES group, respectively (odds ratio = 0.264, 95% CI: 0.093-0.752, P = 0.008). Compared with the DES group, the DCB group demonstrated a lower major adverse cardiovascular events rate (7.84% vs. 19.39%, P = 0.017). However, differences with regard to cardiac death, non-periprocedural target vessel myocardial infarction, and definite or probable vessel thrombosis between the groups were non-significant.
CONCLUSIONS:The utilization of the DCB approach signifies an innovative and discretionary strategy for managing isolated ostial lesions in the LAD or LCx. Nevertheless, a future randomized trial investigating the feasibility and safety of DCB compared to the DES-only strategy specifically for de novo ostial lesions in the LAD or LCx is highly warranted.
