Drug-coated balloons for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries: rationale and design of BASKET-SMALL 2

Sex-specific inequalities in the use of drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease: a report from the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Recent data have established non-inferiority of drug-coated balloons (DCB) compared to drug-eluting stents (DES) for treatment of small-vessel coronary artery disease. Since coronary vessels in women might have anatomical and pathophysiological particularities, the safety of the DCB strategy among women compared to men needs to be assessed in more detail.

METHODS

In BASKET-SMALL 2, patients with de novo lesions in coronary vessels < 3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated (1:1) to DCB vs. DES after successful lesion preparation. The primary objective of the randomized trial was to establish non-inferiority of DCB vs. DES regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; i.e., cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) after 12 months. The aim of the current sub-analysis is to evaluate whether the DCB strategy is equally safe among women and men after 12 and 36 months.

RESULTS

Among 758 randomized patients, 382 were assigned to DCB (23% women) and 376 to DES (30% women). In general, women were older, had more often diabetes mellitus and renal insufficiency, and presented more often with an acute coronary syndrome, whereas men were more often smokers, had multivessel disease and a previous history of acute myocardial infarction, and received a treatment with a statin. After 3 years, the primary clinical end point was not significantly different between groups (13% women vs. 16% men, HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.52-1.30; p = 0.40). There was no interaction between sex and coronary intervention strategy regarding MACE at 36 months (10% women vs. 16% men in DCB, 16% women vs. 15% men in DES; p_interaction = 0.31).

CONCLUSION

In small native coronary artery disease, there was no statistically significant effect of sex on the difference between DCB and DES regarding MACE up to 36 months.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov . Unique identifier: NCT01574534. CAD coronary artery disease, MACE major adverse cardiovascular events, HR Hazard ratio, DCB drug-coated balloon, DES drug-eluting stent.

Impact of Insulin-Treated Compared to Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus on Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-Coated Balloons versus Drug-Eluting Stents in De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: The Randomized BASKET-SMALL 2 Trial

Background: We evaluated the outcome of PCI of de novo stenosis with drug-coated balloons (DCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) versus non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (NITDM). Methods: Patients were randomized in the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial to DCB or DES and followed over 3 years for MACE (cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcome in the diabetic subgroup (n = 252) was analyzed with respect to ITDM or NITDM. Results: In NITDM patients (n = 157), rates of MACE (16.7% vs. 21.9%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29–1.58, p = 0.37), death, non-fatal MI, and TVR (8.4% vs. 14.5%, HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–1.03, p = 0.057) were similar between DCB and DES. In ITDM patients (n = 95), rates of MACE (DCB 23.4% vs. DES 22.7%, HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.46–2.74, p = 0.81), death, non-fatal MI, and TVR (10.1% vs. 15.7%, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.18–2.27, p = 0.49) were similar between DCB and DES. TVR was significantly lower with DCB versus DES in all diabetic patients (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18–0.95, p = 0.038). Conclusions: DCB compared to DES for treatment of de novo coronary lesions in diabetic patients was associated with similar rates of MACE and numerically lower need for TVR both for ITDM and NITDM patients.

Response to pre-dilatation with POBA can predict target lesion revascularization after DCB angioplasty for de novo small coronary artery lesions

Objective

To assess the determinants of target lesion revascularization (TLR) after drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for de novo small coronary artery lesions.

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled consecutive lesions from patients that were in a stable condition and had undergone successful DCB treatment for de novo small coronary artery lesions. The study endpoint was TLR and major adverse cardiac events at 12 months.

Results

A total of 68 patients with 83 lesions were enrolled in the study. Of these, 11 (13.3%) lesions required TLR. Mean ± SD pre-dilatation balloon diameters were similar in the non-TLR (2.33 ± 0.72 mm) and TLR (2.18 ± 0.36 mm) groups. A comparison of the two groups showed that post/pre-lumen area ratio during pre-dilatation (%) by plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) was significantly and negatively associated with TLR and the optimal cut-off point was 170%. Cox proportional hazard and multivariate regression analyses showed that post/pre-lumen area ratio was the only independent predictor of TLR (hazard ratio 0.9318; 95% confidence interval 0.9001, 0.9645).

Conclusion

Greater pre-dilatation using POBA, assessed as the post/pre-lumen area ratio, may be independently associated with a lower 12-month TLR rate in patients undergoing DCB angioplasty for de novo small coronary lesions.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons according to coronary vessel size. A report from the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial

Introduction

In BASKET-SMALL 2, drug-coated balloons (DCB) were non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) in de-novo stenosis of small coronary vessels (≤ 2.75 mm) regarding clinical endpoints up to 36 months.

Aim

In the present subgroup analysis, we aimed to analyze the effect of the two treatment strategies in different vessel sizes.

Material and methods

Patients were analyzed according to the size of the device used (small > 2.5 mm vs. very small ≤ 2.5 mm). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), while secondary endpoints were target vessel revascularization (TVR), non-fatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality, all at 36 months. Interactions for the different groups were assessed with Cox regression analysis.

Results

Overall, 758 patients were enrolled in this analysis, of which 437 (58%) had very small vessel disease. There were similar results in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint in both small and very small vessels (DCB vs DES, MACE at 3 years in small vessels HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.74–2.32, p = 0.355, and very small vessels HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.49–1.39, p = 0.468). Second generation paclitaxel-eluting stents showed significantly higher rates for MACE (p = 0.041), TVR (p = 0.004) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (p = 0.036) compared to DCB in very small coronary arteries at 3 years, while results were similar in small coronary arteries.

Conclusions

Efficacy and safety of DCB are similar irrespective of vessel size. However, there is a beneficial effect of DCB over paclitaxel-eluting stents regarding TVR, non-fatal myocardial infarction and MACE that is most pronounced in very small coronary arteries.

Drug-Coated Balloon for Small Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With and Without High-Bleeding Risk in the BASKET-SMALL 2 Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients at high-bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention represent a challenging patient population. The use of drug-coated balloon (DCB) allows shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapy compared with drug-eluting stents (DES) and reduces thrombotic risk due to the absence of a permanent implant. The present analysis aimed to investigate if the effect of DCB versus DES differed between patients with and without HBR treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in small coronary arteries.

METHODS

This prespecified subgroup analysis of a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial included 758 patients with de novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to DCB (n=382) or second-generation DES (n=376). Patients were followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events.

RESULTS

Of the 758 patients randomized, 155 (20%) had HBR; these patients had higher mortality at 3 years (hazard ratio [95% CI], 3.09 [1.78-5.36]; P<0.001). Rates of major bleeding events were overall low but tended to be lower after DCB versus DES (1.6% versus 3.7%; P=0.064), were similar in patients with HBR (4.5% versus 3.4%) but less frequent in DCB-versus DES-treated patients without HBR (0.9% versus 3.8%). There was no difference in major adverse cardiac events between DCB and DES regardless of bleeding risk (HBR, hazard ratio: 1.16 [0.51-2.62]; P=0.719 versus non-HBR, 0.96 [0.62-1.49]; P=0.863).

CONCLUSIONS

DCBs were similarly safe and effective as current-generation DES in the treatment of coronary arteries <3 mm, regardless of bleeding risk. In patients treated with DCB, there was a trend towards a reduction of severe bleeding events at 3 years.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT01574534.

Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease in patients with chronic kidney disease: a pre-specified analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial

Background

Data on the safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared to drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are scarce, particularly at long term. This pre-specified analysis aimed to investigate the 3-year efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES for small coronary artery disease (< 3 mm) according to renal function at baseline.

Methods

BASKET-SMALL-2 was a large multi-center, randomized, controlled trial that tested the efficacy and safety of DCBs (n = 382) against DESs (n = 376) in small vessel disease. CKD was defined as eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (MACE) during 3 years.

Results

A total of 174/758 (23%) patients had CKD, out of which 91 were randomized to DCB and 83 to DES implantation. The primary efficacy outcome during 3 years was similar in both, DCB and DES patients (HR 0.98; 95%-CI 0.67–1.44; p = 0.937) and patients with and without CKD (HR 1.18; 95%-CI 0.76–1.83; p = 0.462), respectively. Rates of cardiac death and all-cause death were significantly higher among patients with CKD but not affected by treatment with DCB or DES. Major bleeding events were lower in the DCB when compared to the DES group (12 vs. 3, HR 0.26; 95%-CI 0.07–0.92; p = 0.037) and not influenced by presence of CKD.

Conclusions

The long-term efficacy and safety of DCB was similar in patients with and without CKD. The use of DCB was associated with significantly fewer major bleeding events (NCT 01574534).

Graphical Abstract

Safety and Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Prespecified Analysis of BASKET-SMALL 2

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established treatment strategy for coronary artery disease. Randomized data on the application of DCBs in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are limited. We evaluated the impact of clinical presentation (ACS versus chronic coronary syndrome) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing DCB or drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment in a prespecified analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial (Basel Kosten Effektivitäts Trial-Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Interventions).

METHODS

BASKET-SMALL 2 randomized 758 patients with small vessel coronary artery disease to DCB or DES treatment and followed them for 3 years regarding major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization).

RESULTS

Among 758 patients, 214 patients (28.2%) presented with an ACS (15 patients [7%], ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction; 109 patients [50.9%], non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction; 90 patients [42.1%], unstable angina pectoris). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the incidence of the primary end point by randomized treatment in patients with ACS (hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.19-1.26] for DCB versus DES) or chronic coronary syndrome (hazard ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.67-2.47] for DCB versus DES). There was no significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment effect (P for interaction, 0.088). For cardiac death (P for interaction, 0.049) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (P for interaction, 0.010), a significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment was seen at 1 year with lower rates of these secondary end points in patients with ACS treated by DCB. At 3 years, there were similar major adverse cardiac event rates throughout groups without significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment (P for interaction, 0.301). All-cause mortality was higher in ACS compared with chronic coronary syndrome; however, there was no difference between DCB and DES irrespective of clinical presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this subgroup analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial, there was no interaction between indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (acute versus chronic coronary syndrome) and treatment effect of DCB versus DES in patients with small vessel coronary artery disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01574534.

Impact of Diabetes on Outcome With Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents: The BASKET-SMALL 2 Trial

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to evaluate the impact of diabetes mellitus on 3-year clinical outcome in patients undergoing drug-coated balloon (DCB) or drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment for de novo lesions.

BACKGROUND

For treatment of de novo coronary small vessel disease, DCBs are noninferior to DES.

METHODS

In this prespecified analysis of a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, including 758 patients with de novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm who were randomized 1:1 to DCB or DES and followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization [TVR]), outcome was analyzed regarding the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus.

RESULTS

In nondiabetic patients (n = 506), rates of MACE (DCB 13.0% vs DES 11.5%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-2.09; P = 0.43), cardiac death (2.8% vs 2.9%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.32-2.92; P = 0.96), nonfatal MI (5.1% vs 4.8%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.44-2.28; P = 0.99), and TVR (8.8% vs 6.1%; HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.83-3.25; P = 0.16) were similar. In diabetic patients (n = 252), rates of MACE (19.3% vs 22.2%; HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.45-1.48; P = 0.51), cardiac death (8.8% vs 5.9%; HR: 2.01; 95% CI: 0.76-5.31; P = 0.16), and nonfatal MI (7.1% vs 9.8%; HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.21-1.49; P = 0.24) were similar in DCB and DES. TVR was significantly lower with DCBs vs DES (9.1% vs 15.0%; HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.94; P = 0.036; P = 0.011 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of MACE are similar in DCBs and DES in de novo coronary lesions of diabetic and nondiabetic patients. In diabetic patients, need for TVR was significantly lower with DCB versus DES. (Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial Drug Eluting Balloons vs Drug Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Interventions [BASKET-SMALL2]; NCT01574534).

Long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): 3-year follow-up of a randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DESs) regarding clinical outcome up to 12 months, but data beyond 1 year is sparse. We aimed to test the long-term efficacy and safety of DCBs regarding clinical endpoints in an all-comer population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

In this prespecified long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients from 14 clinical sites in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria with de-novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned 1:1 to DCB or second-generation DES and followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events (ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation [TVR]), all-cause death, probable or definite stent thrombosis, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding type 3-5). Analyses were performed on the full analysis set according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for 1 month after DCB and 6 months after DES with stable symptoms, but 12 months with acute coronary syndromes. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01574534 and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between April 10, 2012, and Feb 1, 2017, of 883 patients assessed, 758 (86%) patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group (n=382) or the DES group (n=376). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 15% in both the DCB and DES groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·68-1·45; p=0·95). The two groups were also very similar concerning the single components of adverse cardiac events: cardiac death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 5% vs 4%, HR 1·29, 95% CI 0·63-2·66; p=0·49), non-fatal myocardial infarction (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 6%, HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·45-1·51; p=0·52), and TVR (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 9%, HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·58-1·56; p=0·83). Rates of all-cause death were very similar in DCB versus DES patients (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 8%, HR 1·05, 95% CI 0·62-1·77; p=0·87). Rates of probable or definite stent thrombosis (Kaplan-Meier estimate 1% vs 2%; HR 0·33, 95% CI 0·07-1·64; p=0·18) and major bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2% vs 4%, HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·17-1·13; p=0·088) were numerically lower in DCB versus DES, however without reaching significance.

INTERPRETATION

There is maintained efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease up to 3 years.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical.

Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are a novel therapeutic strategy for small native coronary artery disease. However, their safety and efficacy is poorly defined in comparison with drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

BASKET-SMALL 2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial. 758 patients with de-novo lesions (<3 mm in diameter) in coronary vessels and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive angioplasty with DCB versus implantation of a second-generation DES after successful predilatation via an interactive internet-based response system. Dual antiplatelet therapy was given according to current guidelines. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of DCB versus DES regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation) after 12 months. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 4% in MACE. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01574534.

FINDINGS

Between April 10, 2012, and February 1, 2017, 382 patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group and 376 to DES group. Non-inferiority of DCB versus DES was shown because the 95% CI of the absolute difference in MACE in the per-protocol population was below the predefined margin (-3·83 to 3·93%, p=0·0217). After 12 months, the proportions of MACE were similar in both groups of the full-analysis population (MACE was 7·5% for the DCB group vs 7·3% for the DES group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·58-1·64], p=0·9180). There were five (1·3%) cardiac-related deaths in the DES group and 12 (3·1%) in the DCB group (full analysis population). Probable or definite stent thrombosis (three [0·8%] in the DCB group vs four [1·1%] in the DES group; HR 0·73 [0·16-3·26]) and major bleeding (four [1·1%] in the DCB group vs nine [2·4%] in the DES group; HR 0·45 [0·14-1·46]) were the most common adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

In small native coronary artery disease, DCB was non-inferior to DES regarding MACE up to 12 months, with similar event rates for both treatment groups.

FUNDING

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical AG.

Drug-coated balloons for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries: rationale and design of BASKET-SMALL 2

The treatment of coronary small vessel disease (SVD) remains an unresolved issue. Drug‐eluting stents (DES) have limited efficacy due to increased rates of instent‐restenosis, mainly caused by late lumen loss. Drug‐coated balloons (DCB) are a promising technique because native vessels remain structurally unchanged. Basel Stent Kosten‐Effektivitäts Trial: Drug‐Coated Balloons vs. Drug‐Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Interventions (BASKET‐SMALL 2) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial of DCB vs DES in native SVD for clinical endpoints. Seven hundred fifty‐eight patients with de novo lesions in vessels <3 mm in diameter and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention such as stable angina pectoris, silent ischemia, or acute coronary syndromes are randomized 1:1 to angioplasty with DCB vs implantation of a DES after successful initial balloon angioplasty. The primary endpoint is the combination of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target‐vessel revascularization up to 1 year. Secondary endpoints include stent thrombosis, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding, and long‐term outcome up to 3 years. Based on clinical endpoints after 1 year, we plan to assess the noninferiority of DCB compared to DES in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for SVD. Results will be available in the second half of 2018. This study will compare DCB and DES regarding long‐term safety and efficacy for the treatment of SVD in a large all‐comer population.