TY - JOUR
T1 - Drug-eluting balloon versus second-generation drug-eluting stent for the treatment of restenotic lesions involving coronary bifurcations
AU - Naganuma, Toru
AU - Latib, Azeem
AU - Costopoulos, Charis
AU - Oreglia, Jacopo
AU - Testa, Luca
AU - De Marco, Federico
AU - Candreva, Alessandro
AU - Chieffo, Alaide
AU - Naim, Charbel
AU - Montorfano, Matteo
AU - Bedogni, Francesco
AU - Colombo, Antonio
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Europa Digital & Publishing 2016. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/1
Y1 - 2016/1
N2 - Aims: To report clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) involving a bifurcation lesion. Methods and results: Between February 2007 and November 2012, 167 bifurcation restenoses in 158 patients were treated with either DEB (n=73) or second-generation DES (n=85). The EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the DEB group (4.2±3.8 vs. 2.8±2.1, p=0.004). Regarding restenosed stent type, second- generation DES was more frequently seen in the DEB group (26.9% vs. 6.7%, p<0.001). In this group, there was also a trend towards more frequent stenting for a previous ISR (stent-in-stent) as compared with the DES group (25.6% vs. 15.6%, p=0.074). Over a median follow-up period of 701 days, there was no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction including periprocedural myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, between the two groups (p=0.585). Independent predictors of MACE on multivariate Cox regression analysis included stent-in-stent (HR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.11 to 4.20; p=0.023) and true bifurcation lesions (HR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.45 to 6.14; p=0.001). Conclusions: DEB for bifurcation restenosis may be an acceptable treatment option, especially in cases where repeat stenting has not already been performed for the treatment of a previous restenosis.
AB - Aims: To report clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) versus second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) involving a bifurcation lesion. Methods and results: Between February 2007 and November 2012, 167 bifurcation restenoses in 158 patients were treated with either DEB (n=73) or second-generation DES (n=85). The EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the DEB group (4.2±3.8 vs. 2.8±2.1, p=0.004). Regarding restenosed stent type, second- generation DES was more frequently seen in the DEB group (26.9% vs. 6.7%, p<0.001). In this group, there was also a trend towards more frequent stenting for a previous ISR (stent-in-stent) as compared with the DES group (25.6% vs. 15.6%, p=0.074). Over a median follow-up period of 701 days, there was no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction including periprocedural myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, between the two groups (p=0.585). Independent predictors of MACE on multivariate Cox regression analysis included stent-in-stent (HR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.11 to 4.20; p=0.023) and true bifurcation lesions (HR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.45 to 6.14; p=0.001). Conclusions: DEB for bifurcation restenosis may be an acceptable treatment option, especially in cases where repeat stenting has not already been performed for the treatment of a previous restenosis.
KW - Coronary bifurcation
KW - Drug-eluting balloon
KW - In-stent restenosis
KW - Second-generation drug-eluting stent
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955510799&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955510799&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4244/EIJY14M11_01
DO - 10.4244/EIJY14M11_01
M3 - Article
C2 - 25405656
AN - SCOPUS:84955510799
SN - 1774-024X
VL - 11
SP - 989
EP - 995
JO - EuroIntervention
JF - EuroIntervention
IS - 9
ER -