Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Stenting and Adjunctive Delivery of Paclitaxel Via Balloon Coating Versus Durable Polymeric Matrix for De Novo Coronary Lesions: Clinical and Angiographic Results from the Prospective Randomized Trial

Stenting and Adjunctive Delivery of Paclitaxel Via Balloon Coating Versus Durable Polymeric... Background There is limited comparative clinical data regarding the safety and efficacy profile of paclitaxel delivery via balloon versus stent‐polymer matrix. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic results of two different methods of paclitaxel delivery among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for single de novo coronary lesions. Methods A total of 202 patients undergoing PCI due to symptomatic heart disease and at least one significant coronary artery lesion were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter non‐inferiority trial. Eligible patients were randomized to a revascularization with either a paclitaxel eluting stent (PES = Coroflex Please, B.Braun) or a bare metal stent (BMS) followed by a paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) dilation (BMS = Coroflex + PCB = Sequent Please, B.Braun). Clinical follow‐up was obtained at 9 months in all patients, whereas angiographic in a subset of 94 (46.5%) patients. Results The baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. At 9 months, the primary endpoint of in‐stent late lumen loss in BMS + PCB was comparable and non‐inferior to PES (0.21 ± 0.5 vs. 0.30 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. Pnon‐inf < 0.05). At 9 months, the incidence of MACE (7.0 vs. 6.9%, HR = 1, 95%CI: 0.3–2.8; P = 0.99), comprising the occurrence of myocardial infarction (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.62, 95%CI: 0.4–6.5; P = 0.32), target lesion revascularization (6.9 vs. 5.0%, HR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.4–4.4; p = 0.54) and stent thrombosis (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 2.01, 95%CI: 0.5–7.4; P = 0.74) was comparable between BMS + PCB and PES, respectively. In the BMS + PCB group, thrombosis tended to occur within 30 days (3.9 vs. 1.0%; P = 0.38). Conclusions Paclitaxel delivery via drug coated balloon or polymer‐stent matrix achieved comparable angiographic and clinical results among patients with de novo coronary lesions. BMS + PCB revascularization was associated with a higher rate of stent thrombosis when compared to newer generation drug eluting stents, therefore, should be recommended as a bail‐out for PCB alone angioplasty. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Interventional Cardiology Wiley

Stenting and Adjunctive Delivery of Paclitaxel Via Balloon Coating Versus Durable Polymeric Matrix for De Novo Coronary Lesions: Clinical and Angiographic Results from the Prospective Randomized Trial

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/stenting-and-adjunctive-delivery-of-paclitaxel-via-balloon-coating-qqApJsTh93

References (22)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
0896-4327
eISSN
1540-8183
DOI
10.1111/joic.12210
pmid
26224390
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background There is limited comparative clinical data regarding the safety and efficacy profile of paclitaxel delivery via balloon versus stent‐polymer matrix. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic results of two different methods of paclitaxel delivery among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for single de novo coronary lesions. Methods A total of 202 patients undergoing PCI due to symptomatic heart disease and at least one significant coronary artery lesion were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter non‐inferiority trial. Eligible patients were randomized to a revascularization with either a paclitaxel eluting stent (PES = Coroflex Please, B.Braun) or a bare metal stent (BMS) followed by a paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) dilation (BMS = Coroflex + PCB = Sequent Please, B.Braun). Clinical follow‐up was obtained at 9 months in all patients, whereas angiographic in a subset of 94 (46.5%) patients. Results The baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. At 9 months, the primary endpoint of in‐stent late lumen loss in BMS + PCB was comparable and non‐inferior to PES (0.21 ± 0.5 vs. 0.30 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. Pnon‐inf < 0.05). At 9 months, the incidence of MACE (7.0 vs. 6.9%, HR = 1, 95%CI: 0.3–2.8; P = 0.99), comprising the occurrence of myocardial infarction (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.62, 95%CI: 0.4–6.5; P = 0.32), target lesion revascularization (6.9 vs. 5.0%, HR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.4–4.4; p = 0.54) and stent thrombosis (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 2.01, 95%CI: 0.5–7.4; P = 0.74) was comparable between BMS + PCB and PES, respectively. In the BMS + PCB group, thrombosis tended to occur within 30 days (3.9 vs. 1.0%; P = 0.38). Conclusions Paclitaxel delivery via drug coated balloon or polymer‐stent matrix achieved comparable angiographic and clinical results among patients with de novo coronary lesions. BMS + PCB revascularization was associated with a higher rate of stent thrombosis when compared to newer generation drug eluting stents, therefore, should be recommended as a bail‐out for PCB alone angioplasty.

Journal

Journal of Interventional Cardiology – Wiley

Published: Aug 1, 2015

There are no references for this article.