We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Drug-Coated Balloons: A Safe and Effective Alternative to Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease.
Journal of Interventional Cardiology 2016 October
BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been used to treat de novo small vessel coronary disease (SVD), with promising results and shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration compared to drug-eluting stents (DES). We compared safety and effectiveness of the two treatments at 1 year.
METHODS: We reviewed 3,613 angioplasty cases retrospectively from 2011 to 2013 and identified 335 patients with SVD treated with device diameter of ≤2.5 mm. DCB-only angioplasty was performed in 172 patients, whereas 163 patients were treated with second-generation DES.
RESULTS: DCB patients had smaller reference vessel diameter (2.22 ± 0.30 vs. 2.44 ± 0.19 mm, P < 0.001) and received smaller devices (median diameter 2.25 vs. 2.50 mm, P < 0.001) compared to the DES group. DES-treated vessels had larger acute lumen gain (1.71 ± 0.48 mm) than DCB (1.00 ± 0.53 mm, P < 0.001). Half the patients had diabetes mellitus. While there were more patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the DCB group (77.9% vs. 62.2%, P = 0.013), they received shorter DAPT (7.4 ± 4.7 vs. 11.8 ± 1.4 months, P < 0.001) than the DES group. The 1-year composite major adverse cardiac event rate was 11.6% in the DCB arm and 11.7% in the DES arm (P = 1.000), with target lesion revascularization rate of 5.2% and 3.7%, respectively, (P = 0.601).
CONCLUSIONS: In this high-risk cohort of patients, DCB-only angioplasty delivered good clinical outcome at 1 year. The results were comparable with DES-treated patients, but had the added benefit of a shorter DAPT regime.
METHODS: We reviewed 3,613 angioplasty cases retrospectively from 2011 to 2013 and identified 335 patients with SVD treated with device diameter of ≤2.5 mm. DCB-only angioplasty was performed in 172 patients, whereas 163 patients were treated with second-generation DES.
RESULTS: DCB patients had smaller reference vessel diameter (2.22 ± 0.30 vs. 2.44 ± 0.19 mm, P < 0.001) and received smaller devices (median diameter 2.25 vs. 2.50 mm, P < 0.001) compared to the DES group. DES-treated vessels had larger acute lumen gain (1.71 ± 0.48 mm) than DCB (1.00 ± 0.53 mm, P < 0.001). Half the patients had diabetes mellitus. While there were more patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the DCB group (77.9% vs. 62.2%, P = 0.013), they received shorter DAPT (7.4 ± 4.7 vs. 11.8 ± 1.4 months, P < 0.001) than the DES group. The 1-year composite major adverse cardiac event rate was 11.6% in the DCB arm and 11.7% in the DES arm (P = 1.000), with target lesion revascularization rate of 5.2% and 3.7%, respectively, (P = 0.601).
CONCLUSIONS: In this high-risk cohort of patients, DCB-only angioplasty delivered good clinical outcome at 1 year. The results were comparable with DES-treated patients, but had the added benefit of a shorter DAPT regime.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app