Long-term outcomes following drug-eluting balloons vs. thin-strut drug-eluting stents for treatment of recurrent restenosis in drug-eluting stents

Research progress of drug eluting balloon in arterial circulatory system

The arterial circulatory system diseases are common in clinical practice, and their treatment options have been of great interest due to their high morbidity and mortality. Drug-eluting balloons, as a new type of endovascular interventional treatment option, can avoid the long-term implantation of metal stents and is a new type of angioplasty without stents, so drug-eluting balloons have better therapeutic effects in some arterial circulatory diseases and have been initially used in clinical practice. In this review, we first describe the development, process, and mechanism of drug-eluting balloons. Then we summarize the current studies on the application of drug-eluting balloons in coronary artery lesions, in-stent restenosis, and peripheral vascular disease. As well as the technical difficulties and complications in the application of drug-eluting balloons and possible management options, in order to provide ideas and help for future in-depth studies and provide new strategies for the treatment of more arterial system diseases.

Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Balloons for In-Stent Restenosis: Large Cohort Analysis and Single-Center Clinical Experience

BACKGROUND

The use of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) remains clinically relevant in the contemporary era of drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary interventions (DES-PCI), especially in the setting of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Our goal was to assess the outcomes of ISR patients in a large prospective registry.

METHODS

A total of 2329 consecutive patients with ISR-PCI (675 using DEB and 1654 with DES) were treated in our medical centre from 2010 to 2021. Clinical end points included mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. Clinical outcomes were adjusted for multiple confounders.

RESULTS

Mean ages (65.9 ± 11.0 vs 66.1 ± 10.5; P = 0.73) and percentages of female patients (16.6% vs 18.2%; P = 0.353) were similar between both ISR groups. Patients treated with DEB for ISR suffered more from diabetes, hypertension, and previous myocardial infarction (P < 0.01 for all) and presented more frequently with acute coronary syndrome (40.0% vs 34.4%; P = 0.01) compared with patients treated with DES for ISR. One-year MACE was significantly higher in the DEB ISR-PCI group (23.4% vs 19.6%; P = 0.002) compared to the DES ISR-PCI group, but no significant differences in mortality were observed at 1 year between the groups. After adjustment for multiple confounders, DEB ISR-PCI was not associated with increased MACE at 1 year (P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In our large experience, patients treated with DEB for ISR-PCI have higher baseline risk and sustained increased MACE rates compared with DES ISR-PCI patients. After adjustment for confounding variables, clinical outcomes are similar between the groups at 1 year after PCI.