Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloons vs Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With Femoropopliteal Arterial Disease

BackgroundEndovascular treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease has shifted toward drug-coated balloons (DCB). However, limited data are available regarding the safety and efficacy of DCB vs bare-metal stents (BMS).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare DCB vs BMS outcomes in a propensity-adjusted, pooled analysis of 4 prospective, multicenter trials.MethodsPatient-level data were pooled from 4 prospective, multicenter studies: the IN.PACT SFA I/II and IN.PACT SFA Japan randomized controlled DCB trials and the Complete SE and DURABILITY II single-arm BMS studies. Outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Clinical endpoints were 12-month primary patency, freedom from 36-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and cumulative 36-month major adverse events (MAE).ResultsThe primary analysis included 771 patients (288 DCB, 483 BMS). IPTW-adjusted demographic, baseline lesion, and procedural characteristics were matched between groups. The adjusted mean lesion length was 8.1 ± 4.7 cm DCB and 7.9 ± 4.5 cm BMS. The IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month primary patency (90.4% DCB, 80.9% BMS, P = 0.007), freedom from 36-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization (85.6% DCB, 73.7% BMS, P = 0.001), and cumulative incidence of 36-month MAE (25.3% DCB, 38.8% BMS, P < 0.001) favored DCB. There were no statistically significant differences observed in all-cause mortality, target limb major amputation, or thrombosis through 36 months.ConclusionsIn a patient-level, IPTW-adjusted pooled analysis of prospective, multicenter pivotal studies, DCB demonstrated significantly higher patency, lower revascularization and MAE rates, and no statistically significant differences in mortality, amputation, or thrombosis vs BMS. This analysis supports DCB use vs BMS in moderately complex femoropopliteal lesions amenable to both treatments.     

Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients With Coronary Stent Restenosis

BackgroundIn patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) requiring reintervention, it is unclear if the choice of treatment should depend on whether the restenotic stent was a bare-metal stent (BMS) or a drug-eluting stent (DES).ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of the 2 most frequently used treatments — angioplasty with drug-coated balloon (DCB) and repeat stenting DES — in patients with BMS-and DES-ISR.MethodsThe DAEDALUS (Difference in Antirestenotic Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stent and Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for the Occurrence of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis) study was a pooled analysis of individual patient data from all 10 existing randomized clinical trials comparing DCB angioplasty with repeat DES implantation for the treatment of coronary ISR. In this pre-specified analysis, patients were stratified according to BMS- versus DES-ISR and treatment assigned. The primary efficacy endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 3 years. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis at 3 years. Primary analysis was performed by mixed-effects Cox models accounting for the trial of origin. Secondary analyses included nonparsimonious multivariable adjustment accounting also for multiple lesions per patient and 2-stage analyses.ResultsA total of 710 patients with BMS-ISR (722 lesions) and 1,248 with DES-ISR (1,377 lesions) were included. In patients with BMS-ISR, no significant difference between treatments was observed in terms of primary efficacy (9.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51 to 1.37) and safety endpoints (8.7% vs. 7.5%; HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.96); results of secondary analyses were consistent. In patients with DES-ISR, the risk of the primary efficacy endpoint was higher with DCB angioplasty than with repeat DES implantation (20.3% vs. 13.4%; HR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.13), whereas the risk of the primary safety endpoint was numerically lower (9.5% vs. 13.3%; HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.00); results of secondary analyses were consistent. Regardless of the treatment used, the risk of TLR was lower in BMS- versus DES-ISR (9.7% vs. 17.0%; HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.74), whereas safety was not significantly different between ISR types.ConclusionsAt 3-year follow-up, DCB angioplasty and repeat stenting with DES are similarly effective and safe in the treatment of BMS-ISR, whereas DCB angioplasty is significantly less effective than repeat DES implantation in the treatment DES-ISR, and associated with a nonsignificant reduction in the primary composite safety endpoint. Overall, DES-ISR is associated with higher rates of treatment failure and similar safety compared with BMS-ISR.     

Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessel Disease: PICCOLETO II Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the performance of a novel drug-coated balloon (DCB) (Elutax SV, Aachen Resonance, Germany), with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) in patients with de novo lesions.BackgroundSmall vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) represents one of the most attractive fields of application for DCB. To date, several devices have been compared with drug-eluting stents in this setting, with different outcomes.MethodsThe PICCOLETO II (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment) trial was an international, investigator-driven, multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial where patients with de novo SVD lesions were randomized to DCB or EES. Primary study endpoint was in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months (independent core laboratory), with the noninferiority between the 2 arms hypothesized. Secondary endpoints were minimal lumen diameter, percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up, and the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months.ResultsBetween May 2015 and May 2018, a total of 232 patients were enrolled at 5 centers. After a median of 189 (interquartile range: 160 to 202) days, in-lesion LLL was significantly lower in the DCB group (0.04 vs. 0.17 mm; p = 0.001 for noninferiority; p = 0.03 for superiority). Percent diameter stenosis and minimal lumen diameter were not significantly different. At 12-month clinical follow-up, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 7.5% of the DES group and in 5.6% of the DCB group (p = 0.55). There was a numerically higher incidence of spontaneous myocardial infarction (4.7% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.23) and vessel thrombosis (1.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.15) in the DES arm.ConclusionsIn this multicenter randomized clinical trial in patients with de novo SVD lesions, a new-generation DCB was found superior to EES in terms of LLL as the angiographic pattern and comparable in terms of clinical outcome. (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment [PICCOLETO II]; NCT03899818)     

Biodegradable- Versus Durable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents for STEMI: Final 2-Year Outcomes of the BIOSTEMI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) compared with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).BackgroundPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an effective treatment for patients with STEMI, and long-term outcomes are determined by the safety and efficacy profile of the newest generation drug-eluting stents.MethodsBIOSTEMI (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized superiority trial using Bayesian methods. Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI within 24 h of symptom onset were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive BP-SES (n = 649) or DP-EES (n = 651). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years.ResultsBetween April 2016 and March 2018, 1,300 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. Follow-up through 2 years was complete in 1,221 patients (94%). At 2 years, TLF occurred in 33 patients (5.1%) treated with BP-SES and in 53 patients (8.1%) treated with DP-EES (rate ratio: 0.58; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.40 to 0.84; posterior probability of superiority = 0.998). The difference was driven by a lower incidence of clinically indicated TLR in patients treated with BP-SES compared with DP-EES (2.5% vs. 5.1%; rate ratio: 0.52; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.30 to 0.87; posterior probability of superiority = 0.993). There were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and definite stent thrombosis between the 2 treatment arms.ConclusionsIn patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, BP-SES were superior to DP-EES with respect to TLF at 2 years. The difference was driven by lower rates of ischemia-driven TLR. (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [BIOSTEMI]; NCT02579031)     

Balloon-Expandable Cheatham-Platinum Stents Versus Self-Expandable Nitinol Stents in Coarctation of Aorta: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the balloon-expandable stent (BES) and the self-expandable stent (SES) in the endovascular treatment of coarctation of aorta.BackgroundCoarctoplasty with stents has conferred promising results. Although several nonrandomized studies have approved the safety and efficacy of the BES and the SES, no high-quality evidence exists for this comparison.MethodsIn the present open-label, parallel-group, blinded endpoint randomized pilot clinical trial, adult patients with de novo native aortic coarctation were randomized into Cheatham-platinum BES and uncovered nitinol SES groups. The primary outcome of the study was a composite of procedural and vascular complications. The secondary outcomes of the study consisted of the incidence of aortic recoarctation, thoracic aortic aneurysm/pseudoaneurysm formation, and residual hypertension at a 12-month follow-up.ResultsAmong 105 patients who were screened between January 2017 and December 2019, 92 eligible patients (32 women [34.8%]) with a median age of 30 years (IQR: 20-36 years) were randomized equally into the BES and SES groups. The composite of procedural and vascular complications occurred in 10.9% of the BES group and 2.2% of the SES group (odds ratio: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.02-1.62; P = 0.20). Aortic recoarctation occurred in 5 patients (5.4%), 3 patients (6.5%) in the BES group and 2 patients (4.3%) in the SES group (odds ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.10-4.09; P = 0.64). Only 1 patient (1.1%) was complicated by aortic pseudoaneurysm. Hypertension control was achieved in 50% of the study population, with an equal distribution in the 2 study groups at the 12-month follow-up.ConclusionsBoth the BES and the SES were safe and effective in the treatment of native coarctation.     

Ultrathin Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization: 3-Year Outcomes From the Randomized BIOFLOW V Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin-strut (60-μm) bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin-strut (81μm) durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES).BackgroundEmerging evidence from comparative studies of drug-eluting stents demonstrates improved safety and efficacy with ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents, but limited insight exists regarding late-term outcomes.MethodsBIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) is an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure. Analysis of pre-specified 3-year clinical outcomes was performed.ResultsAmong 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 3-year rate of target lesion failure was 8.2% for BP SES and 13.6% for DP EES (p = 0.002), driven by differences in both target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.0% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.003) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (3.2% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.006). In landmark analysis, significant differences in target vessel MI and target lesion revascularization were observed favoring treatment with BP SES. Definite or probable late or very late stent thrombosis was significantly lower with BP SES (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.018). Cardiac death or MI rates were 7.7% and 11.7% (p = 0.017) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively.ConclusionsIn a large randomized trial, both target lesion failure and the outcomes of target vessel MI, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and late or very late stent thrombosis at 3 years were significantly lower among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. The results endorse the continued superiority of ultrathin-strut BP SES compared with DP EES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946)     

Target Lesion Failure With Current Drug-Eluting Stents: Evidence From a Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of currently used drug-eluting stents (DES).BackgroundHead-to-head comparisons among newer DES have shown conflicting results.MethodsFor this network meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials comparing different types of currently used DES were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and proceedings of international meetings. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year and at long-term follow-up.ResultsSeventy-seven trials with 99,039 patients were selected for this network meta-analysis. Among the 10 DES included in the meta-analysis, 4 received the most extensive investigation: Orsiro, XIENCE, Nobori/BioMatrix, and Resolute. At 1 year, the Orsiro stent was associated with lower rates of TLF compared with XIENCE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 0.98; p = 0.03), Resolute (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.95; p = 0.01), and Nobori/BioMatrix (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98; p = 0.03). Orsiro had the highest probability to be the best (70.8%), with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 95.9%. However, after a median follow-up period of 50 months (range: 24 to 60 months), no significant difference was apparent in the rates of TLF between any DES, although Orsiro still ranked as the best stent (58.6% probability to be the best). In addition, Orsiro had a lower rate of long-term definite stent thrombosis compared with Nobori/BioMatrix (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.98; p = 0.04) and lower rates of definite and probable stent thrombosis compared with Resolute (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.99; p = 0.04). No differences in cardiac mortality between any DES were observed.ConclusionsOrsiro is associated with a lower 1-year rate of TLF compared with XIENCE, Resolute, and Nobori/BioMatrix but with an attenuation of the efficacy signal at long-term follow-up.     

Thin Composite-Wire-Strut Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Ultrathin-Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in BIONYX at 2 Years

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess 2-year safety and efficacy of the current-generation thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES), compared with the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers and a pre-specified small-vessel subgroup analysis.BackgroundThe Resolute Onyx ZES is widely used in clinical practice, but no follow-up data beyond 1 year have been published. The randomized BIONYX (Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents) trial (NCT02508714) established the noninferiority of ZES versus SES regarding target vessel failure (TVF) rates.MethodsA total of 2,488 all-comer patients were treated at 7 coronary intervention centers in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. The main endpoint, TVF, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel–related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularization). Two-year follow-up data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods.ResultsTwo-year follow-up data were available for 2,460 of 2,488 patients (98.9%). TVF occurred in 93 of 1,243 patients (7.6%) assigned to ZES versus 87 of 1,245 patients (7.1%) assigned to SES (log-rank p = 0.66). There was no significant between-stent difference in individual components of this endpoint. The incidence of definite-or-probable stent thrombosis was low for both treatment arms (0.4% vs. 1.1%; log-rank p = 0.057). In patients stented in small vessels, there was no between-stent difference (TVF 8.2% vs. 8.7% [log-rank p = 0.75], target lesion revascularization 4.0% vs. 4.4% [log-rank p = 0.77]).ConclusionsAt 2-year follow-up, the novel thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx ZES showed in all-comers similar safety and efficacy compared with the ultrathin cobalt-chromium-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro SES. The analysis of patients who were treated in small vessels also suggested no advantage for either stent.     

Differential Effects of Newer-Generation Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thicker-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic and Acute Coronary Syndromes

ObjectivesThe authors sought to compare the differential effects of ultrathin-strut and thicker-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with chronic (CCS) versus acute (ACS) coronary syndromes.BackgroundNewest-generation ultrathin-strut DES reduce target lesion failure (TLF) compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing newer-generation ultrathin-strut (<70 μm) versus thicker-strut (≥70 μm) DES. Patients were divided based on baseline clinical presentation (CCS versus ACS). The primary endpoint was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR).ResultsA total of 22,766 patients from 16 randomized controlled trials were included, of which 9 trials reported TLF rates in ACS patients. At a mean follow-up of 12.2 months, the risk of TLF was lower among patients treated with ultrathin-strut compared with thicker-strut DES (risk ratio [RR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75-0.95; P = 0.006). The difference was driven by a lower risk of clinically-indicated TLR (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.89; P < 0.001) among patients treated with ultrathin-strut DES. The treatment effect was consistent between patients presenting with CCS and ACS (relative RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.31; P for interaction = 0.854). In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, TLF risk was lower among those treated with ultrathin- compared with thicker-strut DES (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.049).ConclusionsUltrathin-strut DES reduce the risk of TLF compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, a difference caused by a lower risk of ischemia-driven TLR. The treatment effect was consistent among patients with CCS and ACS.     

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The REVELATION Randomized Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the efficacy and safety of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) strategy versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).BackgroundIn primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, stenting has proved to be beneficial with regard to repeat revascularization, but not recurrent myocardial infarction or death, compared with balloon angioplasty alone. A strategy of DCB angioplasty without stenting might abolish the potential disadvantages of stent implantation while reducing the probability of restenosis observed in plain old balloon angioplasty.MethodsIn the prospective, randomized, single-center REVELATION trial, we compared DCB with DES in patients presenting with STEMI. Patients with a new, nonseverely calcified culprit lesion in a native coronary artery and a residual stenosis of <50% after pre-dilatation were randomized to treatment with a DCB or DES. The primary endpoint was fractional flow reserve at 9 months, allowing for a functional measurement of the infarct-related lesion.ResultsA total of 120 patients were included. At 9 months after enrolment, the mean fractional flow reserve value was 0.92 ± 0.05 in the DCB group (n = 35) and 0.91 ± 0.06 in the DES group (n = 38) (p = 0.27). One abrupt vessel closure requiring treatment occurred after treatment with DCB. Up to 9-months follow-up, 2 patients required nonurgent target lesion revascularization (1 in each group).ConclusionsIn the setting of STEMI, the DCB strategy was noninferior to DES in terms of fractional flow reserve assessed at 9 months. Furthermore, it seemed to be a safe and feasible strategy. (Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction [REVELATION]; NCT02219802)     

Randomized Controlled Trial of Acotec Drug-Eluting Balloon Versus Plain Balloon for Below-the-Knee Angioplasty

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the Litos drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) for reduction of late lumen loss (LLL) in patients with critical limb ischemia undergoing below-the-knee (BTK) intervention.BackgroundRestenosis after balloon angioplasty of BTK arteries approximates 70%. Previous studies of DCBs in BTK arteries produced conflicting results.MethodsACOART-BTK (Evaluation of the Use of ACOTEC Drug-Eluting Balloon Litos® in Below-the-Knee Arteries to Treat Critical Limb Ischemia) is a randomized controlled single-center study. Inclusion criteria were critical limb ischemia (Rutherford class ≥4) and significant stenosis or occlusion >40 mm of at least 1 BTK vessel with distal runoff successfully treated with angioplasty. Six-month angiographic LLL was the primary endpoint. Occlusive restenosis at 6 months and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were secondary endpoints.ResultsFrom January 2016 through January 2019, 105 patients with 129 BTK lesions were enrolled in the study. Mean lesion length was 168 ± 109 mm in the DCB group and 187 ± 113 mm in the POBA group (p = 0.30). Almost 70% of lesions were occluded at baseline in both groups. On 6-month angiography, mean LLL was 0.51 ± 0.60 mm in the DCB group and 1.31 ± 0.72 mm in the POBA group (p < 0.001); rates of occlusive restenosis were 8.6% and 48.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). Twelve-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization occurred in 6 of 62 DCB-treated lesions (10%) versus 27 of 66 POBA-treated lesions (41%) (p < 0.001). Complete healing at 12 months was observed in 42 of 47 DCB-treated limbs (89.4) versus 35 of 47 POBA-treated limbs (74.5%) (p = 0.05); no major amputations occurred.ConclusionsLitos DCBs strikingly reduced LLL, vessel reocclusion, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization compared with POBA in BTK angioplasty.     

Drug-Coated Balloons for Coronary Artery Disease: Third Report of the International DCB Consensus Group

Although drug-eluting stents are still the default interventional treatment of coronary artery disease, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) represent a novel alternative therapeutic strategy in certain anatomic conditions. The effect of DCBs is based on the fast and homogenous transfer of antiproliferative drugs into the vessel wall during single balloon inflation by means of a lipophilic matrix without the use of permanent implants. Although their use is established for in-stent restenosis of both bare-metal and drug-eluting stents, recent randomized clinical data demonstrate a good efficacy and safety profile in de novo small-vessel disease and high bleeding risk. In addition, there are other emerging indications (e.g., bifurcation lesions, large-vessel disease, diabetes mellitus, acute coronary syndromes). Because the interaction among the different delivery balloon designs, doses, formulations, and release kinetics of the drugs used is important, there seems to be no “class effect” of DCBs. On the basis of the amount of recently published data, the International DCB Consensus Group provides this update of previous recommendations summarizing the historical background, technical considerations such as choice of device and implantation technique, possible indications, and future perspectives.     

10-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Everolimus-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundOutcomes data for a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at extended long-term follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are unknown.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial.MethodsThe EXAMINATION-EXTEND (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial) study is an investigator-driven 10-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial, which randomly assigned 1,498 patients with STEMI in a 1:1 ratio to receive either EES (n = 751) or bare-metal stents (n = 747). The primary endpoint was a patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. Secondary endpoints included a device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; the individual components of the combined endpoints; and stent thrombosis.ResultsComplete 10-year clinical follow-up was obtained in 94.5% of the EES group and 95.9% of the bare-metal stent group. Rates of the patient-oriented composite endpoint and device-oriented composite endpoint were significantly reduced in the EES group (32.4% vs. 38.0% [hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 0.96; p = 0.013] and 13.6% vs. 18.4% [hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 0.93; p = 0.012], respectively), driven mainly by target lesion revascularization (5.7% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.018). The rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (2.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.590). No differences were found between the groups in terms of target lesion revascularization (1.4% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.963) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.703) between 5 and 10 years.ConclusionsAt 10-year follow-up, EES demonstrated confirmed superiority in combined patient- and device-oriented composite endpoints compared with bare-metal stents in patients with STEMI requiring primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Between 5- and 10-year follow-up, a low incidence of adverse cardiovascular events related to device failure was found in both groups. (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial; NCT04462315)     

Proximal LAD Treated With Thin-Strut New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of TWENTE I-III

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess 2-year clinical outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with thin-strut new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients treated in proximal left anterior descending artery (P-LAD) versus non–P-LAD lesions.BackgroundIn current revascularization guidelines, P-LAD coronary artery stenosis is discussed separately, mainly because of a higher adverse event risk and benefits of bypass surgery.MethodsThe study included 6,037 patients without previous bypass surgery or left main stem involvement from the TWENTE I, II, and III randomized trials. A total of 1,607 (26.6%) patients had at least 1 DES implanted in P-LAD and were compared with 4,430 (73.4%) patients who were exclusively treated in other (non–P-LAD) segments.ResultsTwo-year follow-up was available in 5,995 (99.3%) patients. At baseline, P-LAD patients had more multivessel treatment and longer total stent length. The rate of the patient-oriented composite clinical endpoint (any death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) was similar in P-LAD versus non–P-LAD patients (11.4% vs. 11.6%; p = 0.87). In P-LAD patients, the rate of the device-oriented composite clinical endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) was higher (7.6% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.020), driven by a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (4.1% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.002). However, multivariate analysis showed no independent association between stenting P-LAD lesions and clinical endpoints.ConclusionsIn this patient-level pooled analysis of 3 large-scale contemporary DES trials, treatment of P-LAD lesions was not independently associated with higher 2-year adverse clinical event rates. These results imply that separate consideration in future revascularization guidelines may not be mandatory any longer.     

1-Month Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Followed by Aspirin Monotherapy After Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Stent Implantation: One-Month DAPT Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by aspirin monotherapy after polymer-free drug-coated stent (PF-DCS) implantation is noninferior to 6 to 12 months of DAPT after biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stent (BP-DES) implantation.BackgroundIt is necessary to determine the optimal minimal duration of DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsIn this trial, 3,020 patients with coronary artery disease considered for PCI for noncomplex lesions were randomized to 1-month DAPT after PF-DCS (n = 1,507) or 6- to 12-month DAPT after BP-DES (n = 1,513). The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stroke, or major bleeding (noninferiority hypothesis margin of 3%).ResultsThe primary endpoint occurred in 88 patients (5.9%) in the 1-month DAPT after PF-DCS group and 98 patients (6.5%) in the 6- to 12-month DAPT after BP-DES group (absolute difference −0.7%; upper limit of 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval: 1.33%; P < 0.001 for noninferiority). The occurrence of major bleeding was not different (1.7% vs 2.5%; P = 0.136). There was no difference in the occurrence of stent thrombosis (0.7% vs 0.8%; P = 0.842).ConclusionsAmong patients who underwent PCI for noncomplex lesions, 1-month DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy after PF-DCS implantation was noninferior to 6- to 12-month DAPT after BP-DES implantation for the 1-year composite of cardiovascular events or major bleeding. The present findings need to be interpreted in the setting of different types of stents according to antiplatelet strategy. (A Randomized Controlled Comparison Between One Versus More Than Six Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation; NCT02513810)     

The IN.PACT DEEP Clinical Drug-Coated Balloon Trial: 5-Year Outcomes

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the 5-year follow-up data of the IN.PACT DEEP (Randomized IN.PACT Amphirion Drug-Coated Balloon [DCB] vs. Standard Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty [PTA] for the Treatment of Below-the-Knee Critical Limb Ischemia [CLI]) trial.BackgroundInitial studies from randomized controlled trials have shown comparable short-term outcomes of DCB angioplasty versus PTA in patients with CLI with infrapopliteal disease. However, the long-term safety and effectiveness of DCB angioplasty remain unknown in this patient population.MethodsIN.PACT DEEP was an independently adjudicated prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 358 subjects with CLI. Subjects were randomized 2:1 to DCB angioplasty or PTA. Assessments through 5 years included freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization, amputation, and all-cause death. Additional assessments were conducted to identify risk factors for death and major amputation, including paclitaxel dose tercile.ResultsFreedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 5 years was 70.9% and 76.0% (log-rank p = 0.406), and the incidence of the safety composite endpoint was 59.8% and 57.5% (log-rank p = 0.309) in the DCB angioplasty and PTA groups, respectively. The rate of major amputation was 15.4% for DCB angioplasty compared with 10.6% for PTA (log-rank p = 0.108). Given the recent concern regarding a late mortality signal in patients treated with paclitaxel-coated devices, additional analyses from this study showed no increase in all-cause mortality with DCB angioplasty (39.4%) compared with PTA (44.9%) (log-rank p = 0.727). Predictors of mortality included age, Rutherford category >4, and previous revascularization but not paclitaxel by dose tercile.ConclusionsTibial artery revascularization in patients with CLI using DCB angioplasty resulted in comparable long-term safety and effectiveness as PTA. Paclitaxel exposure was not related to increased risk for amputation or all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up. (Study of IN.PACT Amphirion™ Drug Eluting Balloon vs. Standard PTA for the Treatment of Below the Knee Critical Limb Ischemia [INPACT-DEEP]; NCT00941733)     

Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V Final 5-Year Outcomes

BackgroundRandomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents compared with alternative stent designs. Whether these differences persist over late-term follow-up is uncertain.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare late-term (5-year) clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES).MethodsBIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international, 2:1 randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin strut BP SES versus thin strut DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Prespecified outcomes through 5 years were assessed.ResultsAmong 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 5-year rates of TLF were 12.3% for BP SES and 15.3% for DP EES (P = 0.108). Revascularization with BP SES was associated with a significantly lower target vessel–related myocardial infarction (6.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.015) and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.6%, P = 0.021). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was numerically but not significantly lower with BP SES (5.9% vs 7.7%, P = 0.202). Cardiac death rates were 2.6% versus 1.9% (P = 0.495) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively.ConclusionsIn a large, randomized trial, TLF and the individual outcomes of cardiac death and target lesion revascularization at 5 years were similar among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. Both target vessel–related myocardial infarction and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP SES. These results confirm the durability of safety and the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin BP SES.     

Clinical Impact of Drug-Coated Balloon–Based Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

BackgroundData on drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in the context of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) are limited.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of DCB-based treatment on percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel CAD.MethodsA total of 254 patients with multivessel disease successfully treated with DCBs or in combination with drug-eluting stents (DES) were retrospectively enrolled (DCB-based group) and compared with 254 propensity-matched patients treated with second-generation DES from the PTRG-DES (Platelet Function and Genotype-Related Long-Term Prognosis in Drug-Eluting Stent-Treated Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) registry (n = 13,160) (DES-only group). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) comprised cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, and major bleeding at 2 years.ResultsBaseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups. In the DCB-based group, 34.3% of patients were treated with DCBs only and 65.7% were treated with the DES hybrid approach. The number of stents and total stent length were significantly reduced by 65.4% and 63.7%, respectively, in the DCB-based group compared with the DES-only group. Moreover, the DCB-based group had a lower rate of MACE than the DES-only group (3.9% and 11.0%; P = 0.002) at 2-year follow-up. The DES-only group had a higher risk for cardiac death and major bleeding.ConclusionsThe DCB-based treatment approach showed a significantly reduced stent burden for multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention and led to a lower rate of MACE than the DES-only treatment. This study shows that DCB-based treatment approach safely reduces stent burden in multivessel CAD, and improved long-term outcomes may be expected by reducing stent-related events. (Impact of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment in De Novo Coronary Lesion; NCT04619277)     

Low-Dose vs High-Dose Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Femoropopliteal Lesions: 2-Year Results From the COMPARE Trial

BackgroundSo far only 1-year data have been reported for direct comparisons of paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) using different coating technologies.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to report the 24-month results on the efficacy and safety of low-dose vs high-dose PCBs with nominal paclitaxel densities of 2.0 and 3.5 μg/mm² and different coating technologies for femoropopliteal interventions from the COMPARE (Compare I Pilot Study for the Treatment of Subjects With Symptomatic Femoropopliteal Artery Disease) trial. Procedural characteristics of clinically driven (CD) target lesion revascularization (TLR) were analyzed.MethodsWithin a prospective, multicenter, clinical trial, 414 patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal lesions (Rutherford categories 2-4, maximum lesion length 30 cm) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to endovascular treatment with either a low-dose (Ranger) or a high-dose (IN.PACT) PCB after stratification for lesion length. Two-year follow-up included assessment of primary patency (defined as absence of CD TLR or binary restenosis with a peak systolic velocity ratio >2.4 by duplex ultrasound), safety, and functional and clinical outcomes.ResultsAt 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of primary patency were 70.6% and 71.4% for the low-dose and high-dose PCBs (log-rank P = 0.96), respectively. One major amputation occurred in the high-dose group, and rates of all-cause mortality (3.6% vs 2.2%; P = 0.55) and CD TLR (17.3% vs 13.0%; P = 0.31) were similar between the groups. Among a total of 57 CD TLRs, 44.6% were performed for reocclusion and 28.1% for in-stent restenosis. Functional and clinical benefits over baseline were sustained in both groups.ConclusionsThe 2-year results of the COMPARE trial demonstrate a sustained treatment benefit of both low-dose and high-dose PCBs for femoropopliteal interventions including a wide range of lesion lengths. (Compare I Pilot Study for the Treatment of Subjects With Symptomatic Femoropopliteal Artery Disease; NCT02701543)     

Survival After Coronary Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons

BackgroundDrug-coated balloons (DCBs) are accepted treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis and are under clinical investigation for lesions without prior stent implantation. A recently published meta-analysis suggested an increased risk of death associated with the use of paclitaxel-coated devices in the superficial femoral artery. The reasons are incompletely understood as potential underlying pathomechanisms remain elusive, and no relationship to the administered dose has been documented.ObjectivesThe purpose of this analysis was to investigate the available data on survival after coronary intervention with paclitaxel-coated balloons from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsPubMed, Web of science, and the Cochrane library database were searched, and a meta-analysis from RCT was performed comparing DCB with non-DCB devices (such as conventional balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents, or drug-eluting stents) for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis or de novo lesions. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The number of patients lost to follow-up was observed at different time points. Risk estimates are reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 4,590 patients enrolled in 26 RCTs published between 2006 and 2019 were analyzed. At follow-up of 6 to 12 months, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was found, however, with numerically lower rates after DCB treatment (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.08; p = 0.116). Risk of death at 2 years (n = 1,477, 8 RCTs) was similar between the 2 groups (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.37; p = 0.478). After 3 years of follow-up (n = 1,775, 9 RCTs), all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the DCB group when compared with control treatment (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.00; p = 0.047) with a number needed to treat of 36 to prevent 1 death. A similar reduction was seen in cardiac mortality (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.85; p = 0.009).ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis, the use of paclitaxel DCBs for treatment of coronary artery disease was not associated with increased mortality, as has been suggested for peripheral arteries. On the contrary, use of coronary paclitaxel-coated balloons was associated with a trend toward lower mortality when compared with control treatments.