Comparison between drug-coated balloon angioplasty and second-generation drug-eluting stent placement for the treatment of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation

In Sook Kang, Islam Shehata, Dong Ho Shin, Jung Sun Kim, Byeong Keuk Kim, Young Guk Ko, Donghoon Choi, Yangsoo Jang, Myeong Ki Hong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Even though drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty has emerged as a treatment option for drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES–ISR), the most effective treatment strategy for DES–ISR is still under debate. Therefore, we compared long-term clinical outcomes following DCB treatment of DES–ISR with those following 2nd-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment. We identified 248 DES–ISR lesions in 238 patients that were treated with either 2nd-generation DES implantation (n = 56) or DCB angioplasty (n = 192). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in the two groups during the 2-year period following treatment. MACE was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization. The percentage of patients with diabetes and the mean age of patients in the DCB group were greater than in the DES group. The DCB group also had a smaller reference vessel diameter. The DES group had a larger post-intervention minimal luminal diameter. We found no significant difference in the MACE rate between the two groups during the 2 years following treatment (11.0 % in the DCB group vs. 8.9 % in the DES group, p = 0.660). Reference segment diameter was the only independent predictive factor for MACE in the post-treatment period (hazard ratio 0.35, 95 % confidence interval: 0.15–0.82, p = 0.016). Clinical efficacy of DCB angioplasty for treatment of DES–ISR was comparable to that of 2nd-generation DES implantation as measured by the rate of MACEs in the two groups. Reference segment diameter was the only statistically significant independent predictor for MACE in the 2-year period following treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1405-1411
Number of pages7
JournalHeart and Vessels
Volume31
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Drug-Eluting Stents
Balloon Angioplasty
Stents
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Therapeutics
Myocardial Infarction
Confidence Intervals

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{c65b9f805fcc4ebb8f8484747e242140,
title = "Comparison between drug-coated balloon angioplasty and second-generation drug-eluting stent placement for the treatment of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation",
abstract = "Even though drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty has emerged as a treatment option for drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES–ISR), the most effective treatment strategy for DES–ISR is still under debate. Therefore, we compared long-term clinical outcomes following DCB treatment of DES–ISR with those following 2nd-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment. We identified 248 DES–ISR lesions in 238 patients that were treated with either 2nd-generation DES implantation (n = 56) or DCB angioplasty (n = 192). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in the two groups during the 2-year period following treatment. MACE was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization. The percentage of patients with diabetes and the mean age of patients in the DCB group were greater than in the DES group. The DCB group also had a smaller reference vessel diameter. The DES group had a larger post-intervention minimal luminal diameter. We found no significant difference in the MACE rate between the two groups during the 2 years following treatment (11.0 {\%} in the DCB group vs. 8.9 {\%} in the DES group, p = 0.660). Reference segment diameter was the only independent predictive factor for MACE in the post-treatment period (hazard ratio 0.35, 95 {\%} confidence interval: 0.15–0.82, p = 0.016). Clinical efficacy of DCB angioplasty for treatment of DES–ISR was comparable to that of 2nd-generation DES implantation as measured by the rate of MACEs in the two groups. Reference segment diameter was the only statistically significant independent predictor for MACE in the 2-year period following treatment.",
author = "Kang, {In Sook} and Islam Shehata and Shin, {Dong Ho} and Kim, {Jung Sun} and Kim, {Byeong Keuk} and Ko, {Young Guk} and Donghoon Choi and Yangsoo Jang and Hong, {Myeong Ki}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00380-015-0741-6",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "1405--1411",
journal = "Heart and Vessels",
issn = "0910-8327",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "9",

}

Comparison between drug-coated balloon angioplasty and second-generation drug-eluting stent placement for the treatment of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation. / Kang, In Sook; Shehata, Islam; Shin, Dong Ho; Kim, Jung Sun; Kim, Byeong Keuk; Ko, Young Guk; Choi, Donghoon; Jang, Yangsoo; Hong, Myeong Ki.

In: Heart and Vessels, Vol. 31, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 1405-1411.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison between drug-coated balloon angioplasty and second-generation drug-eluting stent placement for the treatment of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation

AU - Kang, In Sook

AU - Shehata, Islam

AU - Shin, Dong Ho

AU - Kim, Jung Sun

AU - Kim, Byeong Keuk

AU - Ko, Young Guk

AU - Choi, Donghoon

AU - Jang, Yangsoo

AU - Hong, Myeong Ki

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Even though drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty has emerged as a treatment option for drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES–ISR), the most effective treatment strategy for DES–ISR is still under debate. Therefore, we compared long-term clinical outcomes following DCB treatment of DES–ISR with those following 2nd-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment. We identified 248 DES–ISR lesions in 238 patients that were treated with either 2nd-generation DES implantation (n = 56) or DCB angioplasty (n = 192). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in the two groups during the 2-year period following treatment. MACE was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization. The percentage of patients with diabetes and the mean age of patients in the DCB group were greater than in the DES group. The DCB group also had a smaller reference vessel diameter. The DES group had a larger post-intervention minimal luminal diameter. We found no significant difference in the MACE rate between the two groups during the 2 years following treatment (11.0 % in the DCB group vs. 8.9 % in the DES group, p = 0.660). Reference segment diameter was the only independent predictive factor for MACE in the post-treatment period (hazard ratio 0.35, 95 % confidence interval: 0.15–0.82, p = 0.016). Clinical efficacy of DCB angioplasty for treatment of DES–ISR was comparable to that of 2nd-generation DES implantation as measured by the rate of MACEs in the two groups. Reference segment diameter was the only statistically significant independent predictor for MACE in the 2-year period following treatment.

AB - Even though drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty has emerged as a treatment option for drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES–ISR), the most effective treatment strategy for DES–ISR is still under debate. Therefore, we compared long-term clinical outcomes following DCB treatment of DES–ISR with those following 2nd-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment. We identified 248 DES–ISR lesions in 238 patients that were treated with either 2nd-generation DES implantation (n = 56) or DCB angioplasty (n = 192). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in the two groups during the 2-year period following treatment. MACE was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization. The percentage of patients with diabetes and the mean age of patients in the DCB group were greater than in the DES group. The DCB group also had a smaller reference vessel diameter. The DES group had a larger post-intervention minimal luminal diameter. We found no significant difference in the MACE rate between the two groups during the 2 years following treatment (11.0 % in the DCB group vs. 8.9 % in the DES group, p = 0.660). Reference segment diameter was the only independent predictive factor for MACE in the post-treatment period (hazard ratio 0.35, 95 % confidence interval: 0.15–0.82, p = 0.016). Clinical efficacy of DCB angioplasty for treatment of DES–ISR was comparable to that of 2nd-generation DES implantation as measured by the rate of MACEs in the two groups. Reference segment diameter was the only statistically significant independent predictor for MACE in the 2-year period following treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940705997&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940705997&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00380-015-0741-6

DO - 10.1007/s00380-015-0741-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 26337620

AN - SCOPUS:84940705997

VL - 31

SP - 1405

EP - 1411

JO - Heart and Vessels

JF - Heart and Vessels

SN - 0910-8327

IS - 9

ER -