A Randomized Comparison of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Any In-Stent Restenosis: The DARE Trial

Clinical outcomes of drug-eluting balloon for treatment of small coronary artery in patients with acute myocardial infarction

There were good clinical outcomes of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) use in de novo lesions and in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions. However, few studies focused on DEB use in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The aim of this study was to retrospective evaluate the efficacy of DEB for patients of AMI with de novo small coronary artery disease. Between March 2016 and March 2018, patients of AMI with de novo small coronary artery (reference diameter 2.0-2.8 mm) and received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled. 268 patients were divided into DEB group (PCI with further DEB, n = 56) and drug-eluting stent (DES) group (PCI with further DES, n = 212). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE; all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization) at 24 months. A subset of patients underwent angiographic follow-up. Clinical characteristics were balanced in the two groups. Mean reference vessel diameter was similar between the DEB and DES groups (2.64 ± 0.17 mm vs 2.65 ± 0.14 mm, P = 0.625). The 24-month MACE rates were 17.5% in DEB group and 16.4% in DES group (P = 0.853). Stent thrombosis was seen in three patients (1.46%) in DES group. There was no vessel thrombosis noted in the DEB group. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 35.71% of DEB group and 27.25% of DES group. Late lumen loss was similar between the two groups (DEB 0.14 ± 0.13 mm, DES 0.19 ± 0.12 mm, P = 0.442). DEB is a reasonable strategy for AMI with small coronary artery. Compared with DES, DEB is an alternative strategy which had similar 24-month clinical outcomes.

Clinical characteristics of early and late drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis and mid-term prognosis after repeated percutaneous coronary intervention

Background:

The mechanism and characteristics of early and late drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES-ISR) have not been fully clarified. Whether there are different outcomes among those patients being irrespective of their repeated treatments remain a knowledge gap.

Methods:

A total of 250 patients who underwent initial stent implantation in our hospital, and then were readmitted to receive treatment for the reason of recurrent significant DES-ISR in 2016 were involved. The patients were categorized as early ISR (<12 months; E-ISR; n = 32) and late ISR (≥12 months; L-ISR; n = 218). Associations between patient characteristics and clinical performance, as well as clinical outcomes after a repeated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were evaluated. Primary composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) included cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR).

Results:

Most baseline characteristics are similar in both groups, except for the period of ISR, initial pre-procedure thrombolysis in myocardial infarction, and some serum biochemical indicators. The incidence of MACE (37.5% vs. 5.5%; P < 0.001) and TLR (37.5% vs. 5.0%; P < 0.001) is higher in the E-ISR group. After multivariate analysis, E-ISR (odds ratio [OR], 13.267; [95% CI 4.984–35.311]; P < 0.001) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (odds ratio [OR], 6.317; [95% CI 1.145–34.843]; P = 0.034) are the independent predictors for MACE among DES-ISR patients in the mid-term follow-up of 12 months.

Conclusions:

Early ISR and left ventricular systolic dysfunction are associated with MACE during the mid-term follow-up period for DES-ISR patients. The results may benefit the risk stratification and secondary prevention for DES-ISR patients in clinical practice.

A randomized comparison of two paclitaxel-coated balloons for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: The LONGTY ISR China randomized trial (LONGTY DCB vs. SeQuent Please DCB)

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the efficacy and clinical safety of the LONGTY drug-coated balloon (DCB) with those of SeQuent Please DCB in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

Although DCB technologies have evolved, little is known about the clinical efficacy of the new-generation LONGTY DCB.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing LONGTY DCB with SeQuent Please DCB in patients with ISR. The primary endpoint was target lesion late lumen loss at 9 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients with ISR from 13 Chinese sites were included (LONGTY DCB, n = 105; SeQuent Please DCB, n = 106). Device success was achieved in all patients. At the 9 month angiographic follow-up, target lesion late lumen loss was 0.35 ± 0.42 mm with LONGTY and 0.38 ± 0.45 mm with SeQuent Please (p for noninferiority <.001). The target lesion revascularization rates at 1 year were similar in both DCB groups (15.24 vs. 13.21%; p = .673). Over an extended follow-up of 2 years, the clinical endpoints, including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and thrombus rate, were extremely low and similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter, head-to-head, randomized trial, the new-generation LONGTY DCB was noninferior to the SeQuent Please DCB for the primary endpoint of target lesion late lumen loss at 9 months.

Benefits with drug-coated balloon as compared to a conventional revascularization strategy for the treatment of coronary and non-coronary arterial disease: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 45 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have shown promising results for the percutaneous treatment of de novo and restenotic lesions, involving both the coronary and femoropopliteal district. However, clinical outcomes data associated with the use of this devices are still unclear, with potential warnings on increased mortality being raised from initial studies. We aimed at performing an updated and comprehensive meta-analysis comparing DCB with conventional percutaneous revascularization strategies for the treatment of coronary (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD).

METHODS

Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for studies comparing DCB vs a standard percutaneous revascularization strategy, with or without stenting, for the treatment of CAD and PAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality. Secondary endpoints were recurrent acute ischemic events (myocardial infarction or amputation) or target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

We included 45 randomized trials, (CAD: 27 studies, PAD: 18 studies) with an overall population of 7718 patients, (56.4%) randomized to a DCB strategy. At a mean follow-up of19.3 ± 15.2 months, death occurred in 5.8% of the patients, with no significant difference between DCB or conventionally treated patients (5.9% vs 5.7%, OR[95%CI] = 0.89[0.71,1.11], p = 0.31; phet = 0.43). We observed a non-significant reduction in recurrent acute ischemic events, whereas the use of DCB significantly reduced the rate of TLR, with larger benefits observed in patients with PAD and respect to balloon-only angioplasty, while being lower in comparison with stent implantation. No significant interaction was observed with de novo lesions or in-stent restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, the use of drug-coated balloons for the percutaneous treatment of CAD and PAD is associated to a comparable risk of mortality and recurrent acute ischemic events as compared to a conventional revascularization strategy, although offering larger benefits in terms of TLR, especially when compared with balloon-only angioplasty and in femoropopliteal disease.

Results of paclitaxel-drug-coated balloons (Pantera Lux) for coronary in-stent restenosis: Italian experience from REGistry of Paclitaxel Eluting Balloon in ISR study

AIMS

Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is an effective treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, literature data indicate that drug-coated balloons (DCBs) may be a valid alternative, particularly for recurrent ISR. We sought to evaluate clinical results on the long-term efficacy of a new DCB for ISR treatment.

METHODS

One hundred and ninety-nine patients were treated with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (Pantera Lux, Biotronik, Switzerland) in the Italian REGistry of Paclitaxel Eluting Balloon in ISR (REGPEB study). Clinical follow-up was scheduled at 1 and 12 months. A subgroup of patients received adjunctive 5-year follow-up. Primary end point was Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) at 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 214 ISR coronary lesions were treated (75.4% DES-ISR). Mean time between stent implantation and DCB treatment is 41 months. DCBs were successfully delivered in 99% of the cases; crossover to a DES occurred in 3% of cases. Procedural success rate was 98.5%. Clinical success rate was 98.5%. First-month follow-up compliance was 98% and freedom from MACE was 96.9%. Twelve-month follow-up compliance was 89.3% with a freedom from MACE rate of 87.3% (CI: 81.3-91.5%). Five-year long-term follow-up showed 65.2% of freedom from MACE.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms that Pantera Lux treatment is effective and well tolerated in ISR, showing good acute and long/very long-term results in the treatment of complex lesions (DES and late ISR).

Restenosis of a drug eluting stent on the previous bioresorbable vascular scaffold successfully treated with a drug-coated balloon: A case report

BACKGROUND

The in-stent restenosis (ISR) rates are reportedly inconsistent despite the increased use of second-generation drug eluting stent (DES). Although bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) have substantial advantages with respect to vascular restoration, the rate of scaffold thrombosis is higher with BVS than with DES. Optimal treatment strategies have not been established for DES-ISR to date.

CASE SUMMARY

We report on a case of a 60-year-old man patient with acute coronary syndrome. He had a history of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction associated with very late scaffold thrombosis and treated with a DES. Coronary angiography revealed significant stenosis, suggesting DES-ISR on the previous BVS. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) identified a plaque rupture and a disrupted scaffold strut in the neointimal proliferation of DES. To treat the DES-ISR on the previous BVS, we opted for a drug-coated balloon (DCB) after a balloon angioplasty using a semi-compliant and non-compliant balloon. The patient did not experience adverse cardiovascular events on using a DCB following the use of intensive dual antiplatelet therapy and statin for 24 mo.

CONCLUSION

This case highlights the importance of OCT as an imaging modality for characterizing the mechanism of target lesion failure. The use of a DCB following the administration of optimal pharmacologic therapy may be an optimal strategy for the treatment and prevention of recurrent BVS thrombosis and DES-ISR.

MIA SH3 Domain ER Export Factor 3 Deficiency Prevents Neointimal Formation by Restoring BAT-Like PVAT and Decreasing VSMC Proliferation and Migration

Abnormal proliferation and migration of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) and excessive accumulation of dysfunctional PVAT are hallmarks of pathogenesis after angioplasty. Recent genome-wide association studies reveal that single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in MIA3 is associated with atherosclerosis-relevant VSMC phenotypes. However, the role of MIA3 in the vascular remodeling response to injury remains unknown. Here, we found that expression of MIA3 is increased in proliferative VSMCs and knockdown of MIA3 reduces VSMCs proliferation, migration, and inflammation, whereas MIA3 overexpression promoted VSMC migration and proliferation. Moreover, knockdown of MIA3 ameliorates femoral artery wire injury-induced neointimal hyperplasia and increases brown-like perivascular adipocytes. Collectively, the data suggest that MIA3 deficiency prevents neointimal formation by decreasing VSMC proliferation, migration, and inflammation and maintaining BAT-like perivascular adipocytes in PVAT during injury-induced vascular remodeling, which provide a potential therapeutic target for preventing neointimal hyperplasia in proliferative vascular diseases.

The risk for subsequent coronary interventions in a local Polish population

Introduction

Paradoxically, the literature lacks an assessment of the impact of various factors on subsequent coronary interventions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Aim

To assess the impact of various factors on subsequent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), as well as to characterize the clinical profile of people undergoing repeated diagnostic coronary angiography without significant coronary artery changes.

Material and methods

We investigated retrospective data from 4041 subjects according to the clinical factors which may affect the occurrence of unplanned future PTCA.

Results

The strongest risk factors for subsequent PTCA were significant stenosis of left descending artery (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.09–4.32) during baseline coronary angiography, the atherosclerotic burden (number of critically narrowed vessels) (OR for narrowing lesions in 3 epicardial arteries 12.13, 95% CI: 5.40–27.27), and restenosis in a previously implanted stent (OR = 4.34, 95% CI: 1.96–9.62). A strong positive relationship between total mortality and the number of critically narrowed coronary arteries (during baseline hospitalization) was observed. Patients without significant coronary artery stenosis in two diagnostic angiographies (control group) differed from subjects with hemodynamic relevant CAD in: higher creatinine levels, more frequent presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and more frequent symptoms of intermittent claudication.

Conclusions

The results of the study are in accord with real clinical practice. The arteriosclerotic burden is a major cause of recurrent PTCA, but an important clinical issue is the qualification for recurrent coronary-angiography in those patients whose previous coronary angiography did not show significant stenosis, because other clinical causes may explain their symptoms.

A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Trial to Assess the Effectiveness of the MagicTouch Sirolimus-Coated Balloon in Small Vessels: Rationale and Design of the TRANSFORM I Trial

AIMS

The objective of the study is to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel Magic Touch sirolimus coated-balloon (SCB) when compared to the SeQuent Please Neo paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) for the treatment of de-novo small vessel coronary artery diseases (SVD).

STUDY DESIGN

The TRANSFORM I study is a randomized, multicenter, non-inferiority trial with the intent to enroll a total of 114 patients with a de-novo SVD (≤2.5 mm). Vessel size will be pre-screened by on-line QCA. After successful pre-dilatation without major coronary dissections (type C-F) nor Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction trial [TIMI] grade flow ≤2, patients will be enrolled in a 1:1 randomization to receive treatment with either the novel SCB balloon or the comparative PCB balloon. The balloon sizing will be selected according to the lumen-based approach derived from optical coherence tomography (OCT). The primary endpoint is 6-month mean net lumen diameter gain (6-month minimum lumen diameter [MLD] minus baseline MLD) assessed by quantitative coronary analysis (QCA) with non-inferiority margin of 0.3 mm in per-protocol analysis. The clinical follow-up will be conducted up to 1 year. The enrollment started in September 2020 and will complete in April 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

The TRANSFORM I trial will assess the efficacy of novel SCB in terms of non-inferiority to conventional PCB with a novel OCT measurement approach in patients with a de-novo SVD. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03913832.

Paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty vs. drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a comprehensive, collaborative, individual patient data meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials (DAEDALUS study)

Aims

Consensus is lacking regarding the best treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). The two most effective treatments are angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) and repeat stenting with drug-eluting stent (DES) but individual trials were not statistically powered for clinical endpoints, results were heterogeneous, and evidence about comparative efficacy and safety in relevant subsets was limited.

Methods and results

The Difference in Anti-restenotic Effectiveness of Drug-eluting stent and drug-coated balloon AngiopLasty for the occUrrence of coronary in-Stent restenosis (DAEDALUS) study was a comprehensive, investigator-initiated, collaborative, individual patient data meta-analysis comparing angioplasty with PCB alone vs. repeat stenting with DES alone for the treatment of coronary ISR. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017075007). All 10 available randomized clinical trials were included with 1976 patients enrolled, 1033 assigned to PCB and 943 to DES. At 3-year follow-up, PCB was associated with a significant increase in the risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared with DES [hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% CI 1.02–1.70, P  = 0.035; number-needed-to-harm 28.5]. There was a significant interaction between treatment effect and type of restenosed stent (P  = 0.029) with a more marked difference in patients with DES-ISR and comparable effects in patients with bare-metal stent-ISR. At 3-year follow-up, the primary safety endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis was comparable between treatments (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58–1.09, P  = 0.152). A pre-specified subgroup analysis indicated a significant interaction between treatment effect and type of DES used to treat ISR (P  = 0.033), with a lower incidence of events associated with PCB compared with first-generation DES and similar effect between PCB and second-generation DES (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71–1.60, P  = 0.764). Long-term all-cause mortality was similar between PCB and DES (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53–1.22, P  = 0.310); results were consistent comparing PCB and non-paclitaxel-based DES (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.80–2.54, P  = 0.235). Myocardial infarction and target lesion thrombosis were comparable between treatments.

Conclusions

In patients with coronary ISR, repeat stenting with DES is moderately more effective than angioplasty with PCB at reducing the need for TLR at 3 years. The incidence of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis was similar between groups. The rates of individual endpoints, including all-cause mortality, were not significantly different between groups.

Drug-Coated Balloon for De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: A Systematic Review and Trial Sequential Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment for de novo coronary artery lesions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Background

DCB was an effective therapy for patients with in-stent restenosis. However, the efficacy of DCB in patients with de novo coronary artery lesions is still unknown.

Methods

Eligible studies were searched on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database. Systematic review and meta-analyses of RCTs were performed comparing DCB with non-DCB devices (such as plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), bare-metal stents (BMS), or drug-eluting stents (DES)) for the treatment of de novo lesions. Trial sequential meta-analysis (TSA) was performed to assess the false positive and false negative errors.

Results

A total of 2,137 patients enrolled in 12 RCTs were analyzed. Overall, no significant difference in target lesion revascularization (TLR) was found, but there were numerically lower rates after DCB treatment at 6 to 12 months follow-up (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.01; P = 0.06; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.41 to 1.16). TSA showed that at least 1,000 more randomized patients are needed to conclude the effect on TLR. A subgroup analysis from high bleeding risk patients revealed that DCB treatment was associated with lower rate of TLR (RR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.78; P = 0.03). The systematic review illustrated that the rate of bailout stenting was lower and decreased gradually.

Conclusions

DCB treatment was associated with a trend toward lower TLR when compared with controls. For patients at bleeding risk, DCB treatment was superior to BMS in TLR.

Drug-coated balloons: Technical and clinical progress

The advancement of drug-coated balloons (DCB) presents an alternative nonstent method in the percutaneous treatment of atherosclerotic lesions. While the current generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are the device of choice, especially in coronary artery disease (CAD), DCB has potential applications in the treatment of de novo lesions, in-stent restenosis (ISR), bifurcations, and in peripheral artery disease (PAD). In terms of coronary clinical experience, DCB is used most in ISR scenarios and more data are collected to support the use of DCB in de novo lesions compared to best-in-class DES. The use of DCB in bifurcation side branch treatment has demonstrated safety, and with good angiographic and clinical outcomes, but more data from randomized trials will be required to assess its clinical value. For PAD, the clinical outcomes of DCB with and without debulking devices in diseased femoropopliteal arteries and treatment of below-the-knee (BTK) vessels with DCB are discussed. Current data demonstrated conflicting long-term safety outcomes in the use of paclitaxel devices in the femoral and/or popliteal arteries, while the role of DCB in BTK disease remains uncertain due to a lack of randomized controlled trial data. In summary, this review provides an overall view of current DCB technologies and progress, followed by an update on DCB clinical data in the treatment of CAD and PAD.

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

BACKGROUND

In 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).

OBJECTIVES

This 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.

METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSIONS

At 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.

Treatment of Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus- or Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate a novel sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) compared with the best investigated paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB).

BACKGROUND

Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. PCBs are an established treatment option outside the United States with a Class I, Level of Evidence: A recommendation in the European guidelines. However, their efficacy is better in bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.

METHODS

Fifty patients with DES ISR were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm²) with a clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please Neo, 3 μg/mm²) in coronary DES ISR. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events, and individual clinical endpoints such as stent thrombosis, cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.

RESULTS

Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.21 ± 0.54 mm in the PCB group versus 0.17 ± 0.55 mm in the SCB group (p = NS; per-protocol analysis). Clinical events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This first-in-man comparison of a novel SCB with a crystalline coating shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus [Rapamycin] Coated Balloon or a Paclitaxel Coated Balloon [FIM LIMUS DCB]; NCT02996318).

Survival After Coronary Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons

BACKGROUND

Drug-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.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this analysis was to investigate the available data on survival after coronary intervention with paclitaxel-coated balloons from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, 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).

RESULTS

A 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).

CONCLUSIONS

In 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.

Unrestricted use of polymer-free sirolimus eluting stents in routine clinical practice

Stent designs with ultrathin struts may further increase the procedural success of challenging lesion subsets. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut, polymer-free sirolimus eluting stent (PF-SES) implantations in a large scale, unselected patient population.Adult patients underwent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with a thin-strut PF-SES. Data from two all-comers observational studies having the same protocol (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were pooled. The accumulated target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 9-12 months was the primary endpoint. All dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the applicable guidelines were permissible.In total, 7243 patients were prospectively enrolled for PCI with PF-SES in stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Major risk factors in the overall cohort were diabetes (37.3%), ST elevation myocardial infarction (18.1%) and non-ST myocardial infarction (24.6%). The follow-up rate was 88.6% in the overall population. The TLR rate in the overall cohort was 2.2% whereas definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 0.7%. In patients with in-stent restenosis lesions, the major adverse cardiac events rate was 6.4% whereas the corresponding rate for isolated left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease was highest with 6.7% followed by patients with culprit lesions in vein bypasses (VB, 7.1%). The mortality rate in patients treated in VB lesions was highest with 5.4%, followed by the isolated LMCA subgroup (3.4%) and ACS (2.6%).PCI with PF-SES in an unselected patient population, is associated with low clinical event and ST rates. Furthermore, PF-SES angioplasty in niche indications demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy outcomes with high procedural success rates.

Drug-Coated Balloons versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients with In-Stent Restenosis: A Pair-Wise Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of drug-coated balloons (DCB) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and the differential relative effect of DCB in patients with drug-eluting stents (DES)-ISR and bare metal stents (BMS)-ISR.

BACKGROUND

The efficiency and safety of DCB and EES need to be assessed for the treatment of ISR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all relevant studies. Angiographic results and clinical events were separately assessed. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed according to the type of restenosed stent.

RESULTS

Six randomized trials with 1134 patients were included. The overall pooled outcomes indicated that DCB was associated with lower minimum lumen diameter (mean difference (MD) = -0.17, 95% CI = -0.29 to -0.05, P = 0.006) and higher target lesion revascularization (risk ratio (RR) = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.36 to 4.18, P = 0.002) than EES. However, the subgroup meta-analyses showed that DCB was inferior to EES only in DES-ISR patients, with lower minimum lumen diameter (MD = -0.25, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.14, P < 0.001), higher percent diameter stenosis (MD = 5.37, 95% CI = 1.33 to 9.42, P = 0.009), more binary restenosis (RR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.20 to 3.58, P = 0.009), and higher incidence of target vessel revascularization (RR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.22 to 3.50, P = 0.007) and target lesion revascularization (RR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.22, P = 0.002). No differences in angiographic results and clinical events were found between DCB and EES in BMS-ISR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

DCB was inferior to EES in DES-ISR and comparable in BMS-ISR in terms of angiographic results and clinical events.

Drug-Eluting Stent Targeting Sp-1-Attenuated Restenosis by Engaging YAP-Mediated Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Phenotypic Modulation

Background

Activation of the YAP (Yes‐associated protein) pathway has been demonstrated to be related to smooth muscle cells (SMCs) phenotypic modulation and vessel restenosis. The aim of this study was to illustrate the molecular mechanisms that regulate the expression of YAP during the process of SMCs phenotypic switch. Whether the molecular basis identified in the study could be a potential therapeutic target for drug‐eluting stents is further tested.

Methods and Results

In cell culture and in rat carotid arterial injury models, Sp‐1 (specificity protein 1) expression was significantly induced, and correlated with SMCs proliferative phenotype. Overexpression of Sp‐1 promoted SMCs proliferation and migration. Conversely, siSp‐1 transfection or Sp‐1 inhibitor Mithramycin A treatment attenuates SMC proliferation and migration. Through gain‐ and loss‐function assays, we demonstrated that YAP was involved in Sp‐1‐mediated SMC phenotypic switch. Mechanistically, activated Sp‐1 regulated YAP transcriptional expression through binding to its promoter. Moreover, we fabricated a Sp‐1 inhibitor Mithramycin A‐eluting stent and further tested it. In the rabbit carotid model, Mithramycin A‐eluting stent inhibited YAP transcription and attenuated in‐stent restenosis through regulating YAP‐mediated SMC phenotypic switch.

Conclusions

Sp‐1 controls phenotypic modulation of SMC by regulating transcription factor YAP. Drug‐eluting stent targeting Sp‐1 might represent a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent in‐stent restenosis.

3-Year Clinical Follow-Up of the RIBS IV Clinical Trial: A Prospective Randomized Study of Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Arteries Previously Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DES).

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with DES-ISR remains a challenge.

METHODS

The RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents) trial is a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing DEB and EES in patients with DES-ISR. The pre-specified comparison of the 3-year clinical outcomes obtained with these interventions is the main objective of the present study.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients with DES-ISR were randomized to DEB (n = 154) or EES (n = 155). At angiographic follow-up, the in-segment minimal lumen diameter was larger in the EES arm (2.03 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.80 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.01). Three-year clinical follow-up was obtained in all enrolled patients (100%). The combined clinical outcome measure of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization was significantly reduced in the EES arm (19 [12.3%] vs. 31 [20.1%]; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.57 [95% confidence interval: 0.34 to 0.96]), driven by a lower need for target lesion revascularization (11 [7.1%] vs. 24 [15.6%]; p = 0.015; hazard ratio: 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.87]). The need for "late" (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4%) and target vessel revascularization (4% vs. 6.6%) was similar in the 2 arms. Rates of cardiac death (3.9% vs. 3.2%), myocardial infarction (2.6% vs. 4.5%), and stent thrombosis (1.3% vs. 2.6%) at 3 years were also similar in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-year clinical follow-up of this randomized clinical trial demonstrates that in patients with DES-ISR, EES reduce the need for repeat interventions compared with DEB. (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents [RIBS IV]; NCT01239940).

Long-term clinical safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon in the treatment of in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

There is a long-term safety issue in peripheral arterial disease patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon, this has also raised concerns on DCB in coronary intervention.

METHODS

Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine observational studies (OSs) were included with a total of 3,782 patients (1,827 in the DCB group, 1,955 in the drug-eluting stent [DES] group) being analyzed. The primary outcome measure-major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD), stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause death (AD), and coronary angiography outcomes included late lumen loss (LLL), minimum luminal diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

DCB treatment significantly reduced the LLL (MD: -0.13; [CI -0.23 to -0.03], p = .01). No difference was found for MLD (MD: -0.1; [CI -0.24 to 0.04], p = .17) and DS% (RR = 0.98 [CI 0.80-1.20], p = .86). There was no significant difference in TLR, TVR, MI, CD, ST, AD, and the overall incidence of MACEs between the two groups up to 3 years follow-up. Subgroup analysis for different type of ISR and DES showed no significant difference in the incidence of endpoints, and there is no difference when considering RCTs or OSs only.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of the DCB and DES in the treatment of ISR is comparable at up to 3 years follow-up.

Drug-coated balloon treatment in coronary artery disease: Recommendations from an Asia-Pacific Consensus Group

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is currently the leading cause of death globally, and the prevalence of this disease is growing more rapidly in the Asia-Pacific region than in Western countries. Although the use of metal coronary stents has rapidly increased thanks to the advancement of safety and efficacy of newer generation drug eluting stent (DES), patients are still negatively affected by some the inherent limitations of this type of treatment, such as stent thrombosis or restenosis, including neoatherosclerosis, and the obligatory use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with unknown optimal duration. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment is based on a leave-nothing-behind concept and therefore it is not limited by stent thrombosis and long-term DAPT; it directly delivers an anti-proliferative drug which is coated on a balloon after improving coronary blood flow. At present, DCB treatment is recommended as the first-line treatment option in metal stent-related restenosis linked to DES and bare metal stent. For de novo coronary lesions, the application of DCB treatment is extended further, for conditions such as small vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, and chronic total occlusion lesions, and others. Recently, several reports have suggested that fractional flow reserve guided DCB application was safe for larger coronary artery lesions and showed good long-term outcomes. Therefore, the aim of these recommendations of the consensus group was to provide adequate guidelines for patients with CAD based on objective evidence, and to extend the application of DCB to a wider variety of coronary diseases and guide their most effective and correct use in actual clinical practice.

Angiography and Optical Coherence Tomography Assessment of the Drug-Coated Balloon ESSENTIAL for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the efficacy of the drug-coated balloon (DCB) ESSENTIAL for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

DCBs have proven a valid therapeutic option for the management of ISR in several clinical trials, yet no class effect can be claimed. Accordingly, every new DCB model has to be individually evaluated through clinical studies.

METHODS

This is a prospective, multicenter study including consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR with the ESSENTIAL DCB. A 6-month quantitative coronary angiography (QCA)/optical coherence tomography (OCT) follow-up was scheduled. The primary endpoint was OCT-derived in-segment maximal area stenosis. Secondary endpoints included QCA-derived in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) and target lesion failure (TLF) rates at 6, 12, and 24 months. TLF was defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were successfully treated with DCB, with 67% of ISR corresponding to drug-eluting stents (DES). At 6 months, 26 patients underwent the scheduled angiographic follow-up. The mean value for in-segment maximal area stenosis was 51.4 ± 13% and the median value was 53% (IQR 46.4-59.5). In the DES-ISR subgroup, these parameters were 52.6 ± 10% and 55.2% (IQR 49.3-58.5), respectively. In-segment LLL was 0.25 ± 0.43 mm with only 2 (7.7%) patients showing binary restenosis (>50%). The incidence of TLF was 10% at 6 months, 13.3% at 12 months, and 13.3% at 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the ESSENTIAL DCB showed sustained efficacy in the prevention of recurrent restenosis after treatment of ISR.

SUMMARY

We sought to assess the efficacy of the drug-coated balloon ESSENTIAL for the treatment of in-stent restenosis through a prospective, multicenter study including QCA and OCT assessment at 6-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was in-segment maximal area stenosis. Among the 31 patients successfully treated with the ESSENTIAL DCB, an angiographic follow-up was conducted in 26. Mean in-segment maximal area stenosis was 51.4 ± 13% and the median value was 53% (IQR 46.4-59.5). In the DES-ISR subgroup, corresponding values were 52.6 ± 10% and 55.2% (IQR 49.3-58.5), respectively. The observed in-segment LLL was 0.25 ± 0.43 mm and binary restenosis rate was 7.7%. TLF was 10% at 6 months and 13.3% at 12 and 24 months.

Drug-eluting balloons versus new generation drug-eluting stents for the management of in-stent restenosis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized studies

Background

New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) was more effective in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) compared with the first-generation DES. Drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and new-generation DES had been available strategies in treatment of bare-metal stents/DES ISR (BMS/DES-ISR). Six new randomized trials have recently examined the angiographic outcomes and one-year clinical outcomes of DEB and new generation DES in BMS/DES-ISR. However, the optimal management for BMS/DES-ISR lesions remains controversial.

Methods

We searched the randomized clinical trials evaluating the angiographic outcomes and one-year clinical outcomes of DEB and new-generation DES in patients with BMS/DES-ISR. The primary endpoints were the angiographic outcomes, including the minimal luminal diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis % (DS%), late lumen loss (LLL), and binary restenosis (BR).

Results

A total of six randomized clinical trials with 1177 BMS/DES-ISR patients were included in our meta-analysis. For angiographic outcomes, there were significantly less MLD and more DS% with DEB compared to new-generation DES (MLD: MD = -0.18, 95% CI: -0.31- -0.04, P < 0.001; DS%: MD = 5.68, 95% CI: 1.00-10.37, P < 0.001). Moreover, for one-year clinical outcomes, DEB was associated with a significant increase risk in target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR = 2.93, 95% CI: 1.50-5.72, P = 0.002). However, DEB was associated with higher risks of major adverse cardiac event, target vessel revascularization, TLR, BR, and more DS% only in DES-ISR group.

Conclusions

DEB and new-generation DES have the similar clinical efficacy for the treatment of BMS-ISR. However, DES showed more MLD, less DS%, and a decreased risk of TLR for the treatment of DES-ISR.

Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

Individual randomized trials comparing drug-eluting balloons (DEB) versus everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) were underpowered for clinical end-points. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of DEB versus EES for any ISR.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials which compared DEB versus EES for any ISR (i.e., drug eluting or bare metal stents). Summary estimate risk ratios (RRs) were constructed using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model.

RESULTS

Five trials with 962 patients were included. In-segment minimum lumen diameter (MLD) was lower with DEB (standardized mean difference -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.46 - -0.01) on angiographic follow-up at a mean of 8.6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60-2.19), but TVR was increased with DEB at 3 years (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.15-3.03). The risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was statistically increased with DEB (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.13-4.19) at a mean of 24.4 months. There was no difference in the risk of MI, stent thrombosis, cardiac mortality and all-cause mortality between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with any type of ISR, DEB was associated a similar risk of TVR at 1-year, but increased risk of TVR and TLR at longer follow-up, as compared with EES. The quality of evidence was moderate, suggesting the need for further randomized trials with longer follow-up to confirm the role of DEB in the management of ISR.

Effect of combination of non-slip element balloon and drug-coating balloon for in-stent restenosis lesions (ELEGANT study)

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a problematic issue of coronary intervention. The non-slip element balloon (NSE) is a balloon catheter with 3 longitudinal nylon elements which are attached proximally and distally to the balloon component. The expectation is that this design of balloon is able to achieve a larger lumen area due to the elements, as well as reducing balloon slippage. We investigated whether NSE pre-dilatation improves angiographic outcomes compared to a high pressure non-compliant balloon pre-dilatation, followed by a drug-coating balloon (DCB) for treatment of ISR lesions with optical coherence tomographic imaging (OCT).

METHODS

Patients were eligible for the study if one or more in-stent restenosis lesions were treated with a paclitaxel-coating balloon. Patients were randomized to NSE pre-dilatation (NSE group) or high pressure non-compliant balloon pre-dilatation (POBA group) in a 1:1 fashion in 17 hospitals. The primary endpoint was in-segment late loss [post minimal lumen diameter (MLD)-follow-up MLD] at 8 months.

RESULTS

One hundred and five patients were allocated to each group. Balloon slippage (7.9% versus 22.9%, p=0.002) and geographical miss (6.9% versus 21.9%, p=0.002) were observed less in the NSE group compared to the POBA group. Acute gain was significantly larger in the NSE group (1.17±0.42mm versus 1.06±0.35mm, p=0.04), but post minimum stent lumen area analyzed by OCT was similar between the two groups (3.85±1.67mm² versus 3.81±1.93mm², p=0.64). At 8 months, average lesion length was significantly shorter than the POBA group (5.78±3.26mm versus 6.97±4.59mm, p=0.04), but average in-segment late loss was similar between the two groups (0.28±0.45mm versus 0.27±0.38mm, p=0.75).

CONCLUSION

Eight-month angiographic outcomes were similar between NSE and non-compliant balloon pre-dilatation with DCB for treatment of ISR lesions. However, NSE pre-dilatation has advantages such as reduction of balloon slippage and geographical miss during the procedure.

Major trials in coronary intervention from 2018

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article will review the major clinical trials related to coronary intervention that were released in 2018. Areas of interest include lesion assessment, novel stent design, acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), and major breakthroughs in chronic total occlusion interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefit of intracoronary imaging and hemodynamic assessment was demonstrated by multiple studies, which found improved procedural and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent advanced assessment of intracoronary lesions. The optimal use of drug-coated balloons in coronary disease still remains unclear with conflicting data regarding the benefit of DCB over everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Trials in bioresorbable scaffolds also saw a high level of interest after the ABSORB IV trial showed promising results with changes in implantation technique. Multiple studies evaluated complete revascularization versus infarct-related only revascularization in patients with ACS; however, data was conflicting in regard to what is the best strategy. Lastly, the EUROCTO study was released in 2018 and was the first trial to show symptomatic benefit of revascularization of chronic total occlusions.

SUMMARY

The ESC/EACTS guidelines on complete versus partial revascularization, treatment of in-stent restenosis, and revascularization during cardiogenic shock were updated to reflect data obtained from trials released in 2018.

Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis by Excimer Laser Coronary Atherectomy and Drug-Coated Balloon: Serial Assessment with Optical Coherence Tomography

Objectives

We aimed to compare the results of neointimal modification before drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment with excimer laser coronary atherectomy (ELCA) plus scoring balloon predilation versus scoring balloon alone in patients presenting with in-stent restenosis (ISR).

Background

Treatment of ISR with ELCA typically results in superior acute gain by neointima debulking. However, the efficacy of combination therapy of ELCA and DCB remains unknown.

Methods

A total of 42 patients (44 ISR lesions) undergoing DCB treatment with ELCA plus scoring balloon (ELCA group, n = 18) or scoring balloon alone (non-ELCA group, n = 24) were evaluated via serial assessment by optical coherence tomography (OCT) performed before, after intervention, and at 6 months.

Results

Although there was significantly greater frequency of diffuse restenosis and percent diameter stenosis (%DS) after intervention in the ELCA group, comparable result was shown in %DS, late lumen loss, and binary angiographic restenosis at follow-up. On OCT analysis, a decreased tendency in the minimum lumen area and a significant decrease in the minimum stent area were observed in the ELCA group between 6-month follow-up and after intervention (-0.89 ± 1.36 mm² vs. -0.09 ± 1.25 mm², p = 0.05, -0.49 ± 1.48 mm² vs. 0.28 ± 0.78 mm², p = 0.03, respectively). The changes in the neointimal area were similar between the groups, and target lesion revascularization showed comparable rates at 1 year (11.1% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.85).

Conclusions

Despite greater %DS after intervention, ELCA before DCB had possible benefit for late angiographic and clinical outcome.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Developments in the Last 12 Months

In 2018, there were several studies that significantly added to the field of interventional cardiology. Research was focused on understanding the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in various clinical syndromes, optimizing outcomes for high-risk lesion subsets, and building an evidence base for greater adoption of PCI guided by physiology and intracoronary imaging. In the area of innovation, novel and iterative developments in drug-eluting stents (DES) and scaffold platforms were compared with current generation DES. This article summarizes the research from last year which has had the most impact on PCI techniques and clinical care.

Migration versus proliferation as contributor to in vitro wound healing of vascular endothelial and smooth muscle cells

Wound closure, as a result of collective cell growth, is an essential biological response to injury. In the field of vascular biology, the response of vascular smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and endothelial cells (ECs) to injury and substrate surface is important in therapeutic clinical treatment interventions such as angioplasty and atherectomy. Specifically, the mechanism by which cells close wounds (i.e. proliferation versus migration) in response to injury stimuli is of interest to better modulate recurrent vascular stenosis, prevent thrombus formation, occlusion, and life-threatening cardiovascular events. Here, we examine growth extent and temporal sequence of events following wound or gap introduction to a confluent monolayer of vascular SMCs or ECs. Significant differences in the preferred mechanisms of these cells to close wounds or gaps were observed; after 48 h, 73% of SMC wound closure was observed to be due to proliferation, while 75% of EC wound closure resulted from migration. These mechanisms were further modulated via addition or removal of extracellular matrix substrate and injury, with ECs more responsive to substrate composition and less to injury, in comparison to SMCs. Our results indicate that ECs and SMCs heal wounds differently, and that the time and mode of injury and associated substrate surface all impact this response.

Long-term outcome of brachytherapy treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis: Ten-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine the long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients treated with intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT) for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

ICBT was commonly used to treat coronary ISR prior to the availability of drug-eluting stents (DES). The long-term outcomes of ICBT for ISR remain unknown.

METHODS

Six hundred and eighty consecutive patients who underwent ICBT treated for ISR between September 1998 and April 2005 were included in the study. Clinical and angiographic data were collected and the long-term MACE were measured for all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 10-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients were 63 ± 11 years old (66% male). The majority of patients were treated with a bare metal stent 670/680 (99%) prior to ICBT. Significant baseline clinical findings include high incidence of smokers 479/680 (70%), hyperlipidemia 638/680 (94%), and multivessel disease 526/680 (77%). The majority of target lesions were diffuse 407/680 (60%), and either in the left anterior descending 258/680 (38%) or right coronary artery 215/680 (32%). At 10-year follow-up, the rate of death was 25%, MI was 22.4%, and TVR was 48%.

CONCLUSION

MACE at 10-year follow-up following ICBT for ISR indicates steady rate of death and MI and declining rate of TVR after 5 years.

Contemporary Management of Stent Failure: Part One

The occurrence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) still remains a daunting challenge in the current era, despite advancements in coronary intervention technology. The authors explore the underlying pathophysiology and mechanisms behind ISR, and describe how the use of different diagnostic tools helps to best elucidate these. They propose a simplistic algorithm to manage ISR, including a focus on how treatment strategies should be selected and a description of the contemporary technologies available. This article aims to provide a comprehensive outline of ISR that can be translated into evidence-based routine clinical practice, with the aim of providing the best outcomes for patients.

Leave nothing behind: Promising results for coronary drug-coated balloons in clinical practice

1,025 patients with de novo coronary artery disease (66.9%) or in-stent restenosis (ISR) (33.1%) underwent treatment with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons in a multinational single-arm registry. Bail-out stenting rate was only 4.8%. One-year target lesion revascularization was 2.3% for de novo lesions, 2.9% for bare metal stent ISR, and 5.8% for drug-eluting stent ISR. Short-term results with coronary drug-coated balloons are promising. Nonetheless, long-term data, preferably from randomized trials are necessary to confirm their safety and efficacy.

Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2017: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Numerous important cardiology clinical trials have been published or presented at major international meetings during 2017. This paper aims to summarize these trials and place them in clinical context.

METHODS

The authors reviewed clinical trials presented at major cardiology conferences during 2017 including the American College of Cardiology, European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, European Society of Cardiology, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and the American Heart Association. Selection criteria were trials with a broad relevance to the cardiology community and those with potential to change current practice.

RESULTS

A total of 75 key cardiology clinical trials were identified for inclusion. New interventional and structural cardiology data include left main bifurcation treatment strategy, multivessel disease management in cardiogenic shock, drug-eluting balloons for in-stent restenosis, instantaneous wave-free physiological assessment, new-generation stents (COMBO, Orsiro), transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and closure devices. New preventative cardiology data include trials of liraglutide, empagliflozin, PCSK9 inhibitors (evolocumab and bococizumab), inclisiran, and anacetrapib. Antiplatelet data include the role of uninterrupted aspirin therapy during non-cardiac surgery and dual antiplatelet therapy following coronary artery bypass grafting. New data are also included from fields of heart failure (levosimendan, spironolactone), atrial fibrillation (apixaban in DC cardioversion), cardiac devices (closed loop stimulation pacing for neuromediated syncope), and electrophysiology (catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation).

CONCLUSION

This paper presents a summary of key clinical cardiology trials during the past year and should be of practical value to both clinicians and cardiology researchers.

Drug-Eluting Balloon versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, drug-eluting balloon (DEB) appears to be an attractive alternative option for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Nevertheless, the clinical outcomes of DEB have seldom been compared to those of new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEB compared to those of new-generation DES in the treatment of ISR.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to November 2, 2017 was performed to identify pertinent articles comparing DEB to new-generation DES for the treatment of ISR. In addition, conference proceedings for the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and EuroPCR were also searched. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at the longest follow-up. Dichotomous variables were presented as risk ratios (RR s) with 95% confidence intervals (CI s), while the overall RR s were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies involving 2743 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, DEB was comparable to new-generation DES in terms of TLR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.89-1.72, P = 0.21), cardiac death (RR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.89-2.71, P = 0.12), major adverse cardiovascular event (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.98-1.48, P = 0.07), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.72-1.76, P = 0.62), and stent thrombosis (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.38-2.42, P = 0.92). However, DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality than new-generation DES (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.09-2.50, P = 0.02). This was especially true in the real-world observational studies (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.12-2.88, P = 0.02). In RCTs, however, no significant difference was found between the two treatment strategies in the risk of all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis showed that DEB and new-generation DES had comparable safety and efficacy for the treatment of ISR in RCTs. However, treatment with DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in the real-world nonrandomized studies.