Comparison between drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in very small coronary artery interventions

被引:0
作者
Cheng-Hsuan Tsai
Chih-Fan Yeh
Shih-Wei Meng
Chi-Sheng Hung
Mao-Shin Lin
Ching-Chang Huang
Chun-Kai Chen
Kuo-Ping Huang
Ying-Hsien Chen
Hsien-Li Kao
机构
[1] National Taiwan University College of Medicine,Department of Internal Medicine
[2] Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine,Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center
[3] National Taiwan University Hospital Jinshan Branch,Cardiovascular Center
[4] National Taiwan University Hospital,Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine
[5] National Taiwan University Hospital,undefined
[6] National Taiwan University Hospital,undefined
来源
Scientific Reports | / 12卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The optimal management of very small vessel (reference diameter from 2.0 to 2.25 mm) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) for de-novo very small vessel interventions. We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who received very small vessel PCI with a DCB or DES between January 2018 and March 2021. The outcome measures were the incidence of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) within 1 year after PCI. MACCEs were defined as the composite of ischemia-driven TLR, all-cause death, non-fatal acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure requiring hospitalization. A total of 205 patients undergoing PCI with a DCB or DES were enrolled in this study. The procedural complication rate was 2.5% in the DES group and 1.7% in the DCB group (P = 1.000). After 1-year of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of TLR was 7.2% in the DCB group and 4.9% in the DES group (P = 0.530). The cumulative incidence of MACCEs was 10.6% in the DCB group and 12.7% in the DES group (P = 0.769). Only female gender, acute coronary syndrome on presentation, and dual antiplatelet therapy duration < 3 months were significantly associated with MACCEs at 1 year, but the use of DCB or DES was not. The use of DCBs or DESs in de novo very small vessel intervention was not associated with different outcomes at 1 year.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
Akiyama T(1998)Angiographic and clinical outcome following coronary stenting of small vessels: A comparison with coronary stenting of large vessels J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 32 1610-1618
[2]  
Schunkert H(1999)Implications of small reference vessel diameter in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 34 40-48
[3]  
Harrell L(2011)Impact of lesion length and vessel size on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents pooled analysis from the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) Randomized Trials JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 4 1209-1215
[4]  
Palacios IF(2016)Small-vessel treatment with contemporary newer-generation drug-eluting coronary stents in all-comers: Insights from 2-year DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) randomized trial Am. Heart J. 176 28-35
[5]  
Claessen BE(2018)Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for small-vessel disease: The RESTORE SVD china randomized trial JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11 2381-2392
[6]  
van der Heijden LC(2019)Outcomes in patients treated with thin-strut, very thin-strut, or ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents in small coronary vessels: A prespecified analysis of the randomized BIO-RESORT trial JAMA Cardiol. 4 659-669
[7]  
Tang Y(2019)2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization Eur. Heart J. 40 87-165
[8]  
Buiten RA(2019)Outcomes with drug-coated balloons in small-vessel coronary artery disease Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 93 E277-E286
[9]  
Neumann FJ(2020)Drug-coated balloons for coronary artery disease: Third report of the international DCB consensus group JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 13 1391-1402
[10]  
Megaly M(2011)2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 58 e44-e122