Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Drug-eluting balloon versus second-generation drug-eluting stent for the treatment of restenotic lesions involving coronary bifurcations


Naganuma, Toru; Latib, Azeem; Costopoulos, Charis; Oreglia, Jacopo; Testa, Luca; De Marco, Federico; Candreva, Alessandro; Chieffo, Alaide; Naim, Charbel; Montorfano, Matteo; Bedogni, Francesco; Colombo, Antonio (2016). Drug-eluting balloon versus second-generation drug-eluting stent for the treatment of restenotic lesions involving coronary bifurcations. EuroIntervention, 11(9):989-995.

Abstract

Aims: To report clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) involving a bifurcation lesion. Methods and results: Between February 2007 and November 2012, 167 bifurcation restenoses in 158 patients were treated with either DEB (n=73) or second-generation DES (n=85). The EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the DEB group (4.2±3.8 vs. 2.8±2.1, p=0.004). Regarding restenosed stent type, second-generation DES was more frequently seen in the DEB group (26.9% vs. 6.7%, p<0.001). In this group, there was also a trend towards more frequent stenting for a previous ISR (stent-in-stent) as compared with the DES group (25.6% vs. 15.6%, p=0.074). Over a median follow-up period of 701 days, there was no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction including periprocedural myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, between the two groups (p=0.585). Independent predictors of MACE on multivariate Cox regression analysis included stent-in-stent (HR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.11 to 4.20; p=0.023) and true bifurcation lesions (HR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.45 to 6.14; p=0.001). Conclusions: DEB for bifurcation restenosis may be an acceptable treatment option, especially in cases where repeat stenting has not already been performed for the treatment of a previous restenosis.

Abstract

Aims: To report clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) involving a bifurcation lesion. Methods and results: Between February 2007 and November 2012, 167 bifurcation restenoses in 158 patients were treated with either DEB (n=73) or second-generation DES (n=85). The EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the DEB group (4.2±3.8 vs. 2.8±2.1, p=0.004). Regarding restenosed stent type, second-generation DES was more frequently seen in the DEB group (26.9% vs. 6.7%, p<0.001). In this group, there was also a trend towards more frequent stenting for a previous ISR (stent-in-stent) as compared with the DES group (25.6% vs. 15.6%, p=0.074). Over a median follow-up period of 701 days, there was no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction including periprocedural myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, between the two groups (p=0.585). Independent predictors of MACE on multivariate Cox regression analysis included stent-in-stent (HR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.11 to 4.20; p=0.023) and true bifurcation lesions (HR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.45 to 6.14; p=0.001). Conclusions: DEB for bifurcation restenosis may be an acceptable treatment option, especially in cases where repeat stenting has not already been performed for the treatment of a previous restenosis.

Statistics

Citations

4 citations in Web of Science®
4 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Cardiovascular Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2016
Deposited On:19 Feb 2015 12:00
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 18:54
Publisher:Europa Edition
ISSN:1774-024X
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJY14M11_01
PubMed ID:25405656

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher