The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons for the treatment of in-stent restenosis as compared with drug-eluting stents and with conventional balloon angioplasty.
- Author:
Pyung Chun OH
1
;
Soon Yong SUH
;
Woong Chol KANG
;
Kyounghoon LEE
;
Seung Hwan HAN
;
Taehoon AHN
;
Eak Kyun SHIN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Drug eluting stent; Coronary restenosis
- MeSH: Angioplasty, Balloon*; Coronary Restenosis; Death; Drug-Eluting Stents*; Humans; Incidence; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Recurrence; Retrospective Studies
- From:The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine 2016;31(3):501-506
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: BACKGROUND/AIMS: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still associated with a high incidence of recurrence. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for the treatment of ISR as compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) and drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: Between January 2006 and May 2012 a total of 177 patients (188 lesions, 64.1 ± 11.7 years old) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR were retrospectively enrolled. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with DEB (n = 58, 32.8%), conventional BA (n = 65, 36.7%), or DES (n = 54, 30.5%). The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization(TLR). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were not different except for a history of previous MI, which was more frequent in patients treated by conventional BA or DES than in patients treated by DEB (40.0% vs. 48.1% vs. 17.2%, respectively, p = 0.002). The total incidences of MACEs were 10.7%, 7.4%, and 15.4% in patients treated by DEB, DES, or conventional BA, respectively (p > 0.05). TLR was more frequent in patients treated by conventional BA than in patients treated by DEB or DES, but this was not statistically significant (10.8% vs. 6.9% vs. 3.7%, p > 0.05 between all group pairs, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that percutaneous coronary intervention using DEB might be a feasible alternative to conventional BA or DES implantation for treatment of coronary ISR. Further large-scaled, randomized study assessing long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes will be needed.
