Innate immune cell populations function as initiators and effectors in Th2 cytokine responses.

S. Saenz,M. Noti,D. Artis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2010.09.001

IF: 19.709

2010-11-01

Trends in Immunology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Biolimus-coated Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis (BIO ASCEND ISR): a Randomised, Non-Inferiority Trial.

Yundai Chen,Lei Gao,Qin,Jun Zhang,Shaobin Jia,Mingxing Wu,Yong He,Guosheng Fu,Jinghua Liu,Hui Chen,Qian Tong,Zaixin Yu,Jian An,Chunguang Qiu,Biao Xu,Yu Cao,Changqian Wang,Genshan Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-24-00295

2024-01-01

EuroIntervention

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains challenging in current clinical practice. AIMS: The study was conducted to investigate a novel biolimus-coated balloon (BCB) for the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with the best-investigated paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing a novel BCB with a clinically proven PCB for coronary DES-ISR. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months assessed by an independent core laboratory. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography were performed in a prespecified subgroup of patients. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients at 17 centres were randomised to treatment with a BCB (n=140) versus a PCB (n=140). At 9 months, LLL in the BCB group was 0.23 +/- 0.37 mm compared to 0.25 +/- 0.35 mm in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.12 to 0.07) mm; p-value for non-inferiority<0.0001. Similar clinical outcomes were also observed for both groups at 12 months. In the optical coherence tomography substudy, the neointimal area at 9 months was 2.32 +/- 1.04 mm (2) in the BCB group compared to 2.37 +/- 0.93 mm (2) in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.09 (95% CI: -0.94 to 0.76) mm (2) ; p=non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison of a novel BCB shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB.
Drug-eluting Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Studies

Yanwei Wang,Xinmin Lou,Xiaomin Xu,Jianhua Zhu,Yunpeng Shang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.12.019

IF: 2.974

2017-01-01

Journal of Cardiology

Abstract:Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) with drug eluting stents (DES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). Background: DES implantation and DEB were available strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR, but the optimal management for ISR lesions remains controversial. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies which reported the clinical outcomes of using DEB comparing with DES implantation in patients with ISR. Clinical endpoints such as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death, and myocardial infarction were assessed. Results: Five randomized controlled trials and five observational cohort studies with 962 patients in the DEB group and 908 patients in the DES group met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between DEB and DES in major clinical outcomes, such as MACE (OR 1.01; 95% Cl: 0.64-1.58; p = 0.97; I-2 = 0%), all-cause death (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.54-1.98; p = 0.91; I-2 = 0%), cardiovascular death (OR 1.44; 95% CI: 0.57-3.65; p = 0.44; I-2 = 0%), stent thrombosis (OR 0.61; 95% Cl: 0.16-2.33; p = 0.47; I-2 = 0%), and myocardial infarction (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.53-1.94; p = 0.96; I-2 = 0%). DEB was associated with a significant increase in target lesion revascularization (OR 1.54; 95% CI: 1.10-2.15; p = 0.01; I-2 = 57%). Conclusion: Treatment of ISR using DEB led to comparable clinical outcomes with DES implantation. (C) 2017 Japanese College of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comparison of 2 Different Drug-Coated Balloons in In-Stent Restenosis

Yundai Chen,Lei Gao,Qin,Shaoliang Chen,Jun Zhang,Hui Chen,Lefeng Wang,Zening Jin,Yang Zheng,Zheng Zhang,Hui Li,Xue Li,Guosheng Fu,Lian Chen,Zhijun Sun,Yu Wang,Qinhua Jin,Feng Cao,Jun Guo,Yanyan Zhao,Changdong Guan,Wei Li,Bo Xu,Yong Zeng,Qing Yang,Jian Zhang,Jingyu Yang,Xiaobo Li,Jun-jie Zhang,Shoujie San,Zhen Ge,Liang Chen,Wei You,Zhiming Wu,Nailiang Tian,Jun Wang,Jinguo Fu,Heping Niu,Siwen Liang,Huiqiang Zhao,Dongbao Li,Duo Yang,Shuai Meng,Zhiyong Zhang,Shouyan Hao,Ming Bai,Cunrui Zhao,Manqing Wang,Jijia Wang,Yusheng Xue,Bin Wang,Fuyu Qiu,Yanbo Zhao,Chongyin Jin,Shengjie Xu,Lili Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.09.010

IF: 11.075

2018-01-01

JACC Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:The aim of the present study was to evaluate the angiographic efficacy, clinical safety, and effectiveness of the Restore paclitaxel-coated balloon in a randomized trial designed to enable the approval of the new device in China. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty offers an effective treatment for in-stent restenosis. Restore is a new DCB with a SAFEPAX shellac-ammonium salt excipient that can avoid drug washing off during catheter delivery to the target lesion site. In the noninferiority RESTORE ISR China (Compare the Efficacy and Safety of RESTORE DEB and SeQuent Please in Chinese Patient With Coronary In-stent Restenosis) trial, eligible patients with first occurrence of drug-eluting stent ISR were randomized to the Restore DCB or SeQuent Please DCB in a 1:1 ratio stratified by diabetes. Angiographic and clinical follow-up was planned at 9 months and 1 year, respectively, in all patients. The study was powered for the primary endpoint of 9-month in-segment late loss. Between May 2016 and July 2017, a total of 240 subjects at 12 sites were randomized to either the Restore group (n = 120) or the SeQuent Please group (n = 120). Nine-month in-segment late loss was 0.38 ± 0.50 mm with Restore versus 0.35 ± 0.47 mm with SeQuent Please; the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.17 mm, achieving noninferiority of Restore compared with SeQuent Please (p for noninferiority = 0.02). Both DCBs had similar 1-year rates of target lesion failure (13.3% vs. 12.6%; p = 0.87). In this head-to-head randomized trial, the Restore DCB was noninferior to the SeQuent Please DCB for the primary endpoint of 9-month in-segment late loss. (Compare the Efficacy and Safety of RESTORE DEB and SeQuent Please in Chinese Patient With Coronary In-stent Restenosis; NCT02944890)
Two-year results and subgroup analyses of the PEPCAD China in-stent restenosis trial: A prospective, multicenter, randomized trial for the treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis.

Xu Bo,Qian Jie,Ge Junbo,Wang Jian'an,Chen Fang,Chen Jiyan,Wei Meng,Chen Yundai,Yang Yuejin,Gao Runlin,null null

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26401

IF: 2.3

2016-01-01

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:BackgroundThe PEPCAD China ISR trial investigated the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty in an Asian patient population with coronary drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES-ISR). Methods: A total of 220 patients with coronary DES-ISR were treated with PCB angioplasty or with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). This randomized (1:1), single-blind prospective multicenter trial in a Chinese population used 9-month in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included the 24-month clinical event rates. Results: Both treatment groups were similar in terms of patient, lesion, or procedural characteristics. After the 12-month follow-up evaluation, additional clinical events only occurred in the PES study group. The combined rate of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) in the PCB group was significantly lower than that in the PES group (3.7% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.03). Additional subgroup analyses of 9-month in-segment LLL and 2-year target lesion failure in patients with diabetes, small vessels, diffuse ISR, and stent margin restenosis did not show more favorable results for one specific treatment group. Conclusions: The 2-year follow-up demonstrated sustained long-term clinical efficacy for both devices. PCB angioplasty was associated with significantly lower overall and cardiovascular mortality/MI rates in patients with DES-ISR lesions while avoiding the use of additional metal layers for drug release (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT 01622075). (c) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
A Randomized Comparison of Two Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis: the LONGTY ISR China Randomized Trial (LONGTY DCB Vs. SeQuent Please DCB).

Po Hu,Yong Sun,Chang-Ling Li,Rui Jin,Qiang Xie,Xue-Jun Jiang,Lian-Pin Wu,Jian-Jun Jiang,Xin-Biao Qiu,Yu Cao,Guang Ji,Hua Wang,Zhu-Hua Yao,Bin Li,Yong Xia,Jian-An Wang,Jun Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29589

IF: 2.3

2021-01-01

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:Objectives This study sought to compare the efficacy and clinical safety of the LONGTY drug-coated balloon (DCB) with those of SeQuent Please DCB in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). Background Although DCB technologies have evolved, little is known about the clinical efficacy of the new-generation LONGTY DCB. Methods This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing LONGTY DCB with SeQuent Please DCB in patients with ISR. The primary endpoint was target lesion late lumen loss at 9 months' follow-up. Results A total of 211 patients with ISR from 13 Chinese sites were included (LONGTY DCB, n = 105; SeQuent Please DCB, n = 106). Device success was achieved in all patients. At the 9 month angiographic follow-up, target lesion late lumen loss was 0.35 +/- 0.42 mm with LONGTY and 0.38 +/- 0.45 mm with SeQuent Please (p for noninferiority <.001). The target lesion revascularization rates at 1 year were similar in both DCB groups (15.24 vs. 13.21%; p = .673). Over an extended follow-up of 2 years, the clinical endpoints, including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and thrombus rate, were extremely low and similar in both groups. Conclusions In this multicenter, head-to-head, randomized trial, the new-generation LONGTY DCB was noninferior to the SeQuent Please DCB for the primary endpoint of target lesion late lumen loss at 9 months.
A prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of paclitaxel-coated balloon versus paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis: results from the PEPCAD China ISR trial.

Xu Bo,Gao Runlin,Wang Jian'an,Yang Yuejin,Chen Shaoliang,Liu Bin,Chen Fang,Li Zhanquan,Han Yaling,Fu Guosheng,Zhao Yelin,Ge Junbo,null null

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.08.011

2014-01-01

Abstract:The intention of the PEPCAD China ISR (A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Trial of Paclitaxel-Coated versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis) was to demonstrate the efficacy of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty in a non-European patient population with coronary drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES-ISR).The treatment of DES-ISR is still challenging with no established best strategy. Moreover, there is no study on the effect of PCB in the treatment of ISR in the Chinese population.PEPCAD China ISR was a 220-patient randomized (1:1), single-blind prospective multicenter trial conducted in China. Patients with coronary DES-ISR received either PCB (SeQuent Please, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany) or paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Liberté, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) treatment. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss at 9 months.There were no significant baseline differences between both treatment groups in terms of patient, lesion, or procedural characteristics. At 9 months, in-segment late lumen loss in the PCB group was noninferior to that of the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (0.46 ± 0.51 mm vs. 0.55 ± 0.61 mm; difference: -0.06 mm with 95% confidence interval: -0.23 to 0.10; p for noninferiority = 0.0005). The 9-month rate of binary restenosis and 12-month composite clinical event rates were not significantly different between groups.In a randomized trial of 220 patients, angioplasty with a PCB was noninferior to paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation when used to treat DES-ISR. On the basis of these, as well as previous randomized trial data, PCB angioplasty offers an effective treatment for DES-ISR without the necessity of implanting additional metal layers for drug release. (A Safety and Efficacy Study of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon to Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent [PEPCAD]; NCT01622075).
Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for de novo culprit lesion in acute coronary syndromes: a report from nationwide registry in japan

T Takahashi,K Yamaji,S Kohsaka,H Ishii,Y Mori,T Wakatsuki,K Yamaguchi,D Nishioka,K Kusunose,T Amano,M Sata,K Kozuma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2407

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background Randomized trials have demonstrated the non-inferiority of DCB strategy compared to DES strategy for ACS [1-3]. However, generalizability in clinical settings remains unclear. Purpose This study aims to compare the outcomes between drug-coated balloon (DCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within a nationwide procedure-based registry. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of a cohort study from a prospective, nationwide registry from January 2017 to December 2020 in Japan, focusing on ACS patients who underwent DCB or DES strategy for a single de novo lesion. One-year incidence of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, non-cardiovascular death, non-fatal ACS, stroke, and major bleeding events were compared. Subgroup analysis included lesion-based and ST-elevation myocardial infarction/non-ST-elevation ACS stratification. Results Among 5,212 propensity-matched ACS patients, DCB and DES strategies showed no significant differences in one-year incidence of all-cause death (4.5% vs. 4.6%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-1.19), cardiovascular death (2.5% vs. 2.5%, HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64-1.26), non-cardiovascular death (2.0% vs. 2.1%, HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.65-1.42), and non-fatal ACS (1.7% vs. 2.0%, HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.70-1.54). DCB showed higher stroke occurrence (0.8% vs. 0.3%, HR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.06-5.08) but lower major bleeding events (1.4% vs. 2.3%, HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99) (Figure 1). Subgroup analyses did not reproduce these findings (Figure 2). Conclusions ACS patients using the DCB strategy demonstrated clinical outcomes equivalent to those undergoing the DES strategy at one year. Further investigation with an extended follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Comparative long‐term efficacy and safety of two paclitaxel‐coated balloons with different coating strategies for the treatment of drug‐eluting coronary stent restenosis

Tobias Koch,Tobias Lenz,Tobias Rheude,Salvatore Cassese,Erion Xhepa,Michael Joner,Julinda Mehilli,Heribert Schunkert,Adnan Kastrati,Sebastian Kufner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31228

IF: 2.3

2024-09-20

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:Background We previously showed non‐inferiority of a low‐dose paclitaxel‐coated balloon (PCB) with citrate excipient (Agent PCB) as compared to normal‐dose iopromide excipient (SeQuent Please PCB) in terms of angiographic and clinical endpoints at 12 months. The long‐term clinical efficacy and safety of Agent PCB is not defined. Methods 262 patients (323 DES‐ISR lesions) were enrolled in this study and treated with either Agent PCB (125 patients, 151 lesions) in the ISAR‐DESIRE 3a trial or with SeQuent Please PCB (137 patients, 172 lesions) in the setting of the randomized ISAR‐DESIRE 3 trial with similar in‐ and exclusion criteria serving as historical control arm. The follow‐up period was extended to 7 years. The efficacy and safety endpoints of this analysis were target‐lesion revascularization (TLR), death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion thrombosis (TLT) at 7 years. Results At 7 years, 206 patients (78.6%) were alive. The risks of TLR (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87–1.90; p = 0.205), death (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.82‐2.35; p = 0.227), MI (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.39–3.15; p = 0.852) and TLT (HR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.20–24.10; p = 0.523) were comparable between Agent PCB and SeQuent PCB. Multivariate analysis showed comparable risks of TLR, death and MI between both PCB devices. Conclusions In patients treated for DES‐ISR by angioplasty with Agent PCB and SeQuent Please PCB, there was no statistically significant difference in TLR at 7 years. Randomized trials with standardized lesion preparation and long‐term follow‐up are warranted to further evaluate comparative efficacy of both devices. (ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT02367495).

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Correction of Cassicinae Bonaparte, 1853 (Aves, Icteridae) to Cacicinae Bonaparte, 1853.

R. Schodde,J. V. Remsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4162.1.10

IF: 0.9

2016-09-08

Zootaxa

Abstract:In our recently published revised classification of the Icteridae (Remsen et al. 2016), we used the family group name Cassicinae Bonaparte, 1853 on the assumption that its type genus was Cassicus Illiger, 1811. We have since confirmed, after kind advice from Thomas Donegan (pers. comm. 2016), that Cassicus Illiger (1811: 214) is simply an unjustified emendation of Cacicus Lacépède, 1799, made clear by Illiger (l.c.) in a footnote to his description of Cassicus. Under Articles 32.5.3.2 and 35.4.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), a family-group name formed from an unjustified emendation of the name of its type genus is to be corrected, unless the emendation has come into use as a substitute name or through prevailing use. This is not the case here, and accordingly we correct the spelling of Cassicinae to Cacicinae. Bonaparte (1853) retains authorship; and, although not expressly mentioned before, his originally ligatured suffix -eoe for the name was automatically corrected by us (Remsen et al. l.c.) under Articles 11.7.1.3 and 32.5.3 of the Code (ICZN l.c.).
Drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus drug-eluting stent implantation in ACS patients with different angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis

Haifang Xie,Miaohan Qiu,Xinyan Li,Yao Xiao,Yanyan Mu,Geng Wang,Yaling Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132450

2024-08-13

Abstract:Background: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and drug-eluting stents (DES) are two widely used treatments for in-stent restenosis (ISR). Focal and non-focal types of ISR affect the clinical outcomes. The present study aims to compare DES reimplantation versus DCB angioplasty in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with focal ISR and non-focal ISR lesions. Methods: Patients with ISR lesions underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were retrospectively evaluated and divided into DES group and DCB group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) at 24 months follow up. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics. Results: For focal ISR, TLF was comparable in the DES and DCB groups at 24 months of follow-up (Before PSM, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-1.27; p = 0.244; After PSM, HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.40-1.73; p = 0.625). For non-focal ISR, TLF was significantly decreased in DES compared with DCB group (Before PSM, HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.29-0.63; p < 0.001; After PSM, HR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.19-0.59; p < 0.001), which was mainly attributed to the lower incidence of clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) (Before PSM, HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.26-0.59; p < 0.001; After PSM, HR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.54; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The clinical outcomes for DES and DCB treatment are similar in focal type of ISR lesions. For non-focal ISR, the treatment of DES showed a significant decrease in TLF which was mainly attributed to a lower incidence of CD-TLR.
Comprehensive clinical outcomes of drug‐coated balloon treatment for coronary artery disease. Insights from a single‐center experience

Atsushi Funatsu,Tatsushi Sato,Jumpei Koike,Masahiro Mizobuchi,Tomoko Kobayashi,Shigeru Nakamura

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30945

IF: 2.3

2024-01-14

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:Background Some clinical trials have verified the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel drug‐coated balloon (DCB) for small vessel coronary artery disease. However, nonsmall vessel and calcified lesions received less attention. Aims This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of DCB treatment for various types of coronary artery lesions, including not only small vessel disease but also nonsmall vessel disease and calcified lesions. In this real‐world clinical practice study, in‐stent restenosis was excluded. Methods This study consecutively included 934 patients with 1751 nonstented lesions who received DCB at a cardiovascular center in Kyoto Katsura Hospital in Japan between 2009 and 2012 and 2014 to 2019. This study enrolled and retrospectively analyzed all of the patients. Eligible patients routinely underwent follow‐up angiography at 6–8 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint includes target lesion revascularization (TLR) during follow‐up. Further, this study calculated the predictor of TLR using multivariate analysis. Results This study included the lesions involving 46.4% of type B2/C, 26.9% with severe calcification, and 6.0% with DCB restenosis. Mean DCB diameter and length were 2.75 ± 0.51 mm and 24.2 ± 9.6 mm, respectively. The median follow‐up duration was 18 months. Follow‐up angiography revealed a TLR rate of 9% and a restenosis rate of 9%. This study identified hemodialysis and current smoking as independent TLR predictors. Conclusion In routine clinical practice, the effectiveness of DCB was observed consistently across various types of coronary artery disease.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Long-term outcomes following DCB vs. DES for ISR treatment

R Januszek,W Wanha,B Cortese,W Wojakowski,F Dascenzo,S Iwanczyk,M Jaguszewski,M Lesiak,M Gasior,J Kochman,R Wolny,J Kubica,A Witkowski,S Bartus,R J Gil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1450

IF: 39.3

2024-10-28

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background The-long term outcomes of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) presenting with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) are not well studied. Purpose This study aims to investigate the outcomes of patients with drug-eluting stents (DES)-ISR presenting with CCS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-coated balloons (DCB) or thin strut-DES. Methods Consecutive patients from the Dragon-Registry with CCS and DES-ISR who underwent PCI with thin-DES or paclitaxel-DCB for DES-ISR were enrolled. Primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes were target vessel revascularization (TVR) and device-oriented composite endpoint [DOCE: cardiac death, TLR or target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI)]. Propensity-score matching was used to adjust for baseline differences. Results A total of 846 patients were included in the pooled analysis, of whom 381 (45%) were treated with a thin-DES and 465 (55%) with paclitaxel-DCB. Patients who received thin-DES compared with those who received paclitaxel-DCB had lower crude rates of TLR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.74], P<0.001) TVR (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.39-0.86], P<0.001) and DOCE (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88], P=0.007).The incidence of cardiac death and TV-MI were similar in both groups. After matching, the observed differences persisted in terms of TLR (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33–0.88], P=0.013), TVR (HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41–0.80], P=0.009), and DOCE (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.42–0.99], P=0.046) between the thin-DES and DCB group, respectively. Conclusions In long term observation in patients with CCS undergoing PCI of ISR, the use of thin-DES is associated with reduced rates of TLR, TVR and DOCE compared with patients treated with DCB.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
A Non-inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents on Angiographic Outcomes for Coronary De Novo Lesions

Xue Yu,Xinyue Wang,Fusui Ji,Wenduo Zhang,Chenguang Yang,Feng Xu,Fang Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10557-021-07172-4

2021-03-13

Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy

Abstract:Abstract Background Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been proved efficacy for coronary small vessel disease, but data regarding outcomes of DCB in common de novo lesions (including reference vessel diameter more than 3.0mm) compared with new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) are lacking. We hypothesized that a DCB-only strategy for coronary de novo lesions would be non-inferior to DES treatment on angiographic outcomes. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, we compared the effect of DCB with DES on late lumen loss (LLL) at 9-month angiographic follow-up and 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results From July 2017 to July 2018, 288 consecutive patients with reference vessel diameter (RVD) between 2.25 and 4.0mm were screened. After proper pre-dilation, 170 patients were enrolled and randomized to the DCB and the DES groups at 1:1 ratio. Seven patients withdrew the consent forms during hospital stay (1 in DCB group, 6 in DES group). Two patients in DCB group underwent bailout stenting due to severe dissection after DCB release. The primary endpoint of 9-month LLL was −0.19±0.49mm with the DCB versus 0.03±0.64mm with the DES. The one-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was −0.04mm, achieving non-inferiority of the DCB compared with the DES ( P =0.019). The 12-month cumulative MACE rate was similar in the DCB and DES groups (2.44% vs. 6.33%, P =0.226). Conclusions In this prospective study, the DCB only strategy for de novo lesion was non-inferior to the new-generation DES in terms of 9-month late lumen loss.

pharmacology & pharmacy,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Off-Label Use of Peripheral Paclitaxel Drug-Coated Balloons in Management of Recurrent Coronary In-Stent Restenosis

Mahesh V Madhavan,Emad Hakemi,Rishi Neeranjun,Hussein M Rahim,Shayan Nabavi Nouri,Erin Flattery,Megha Prasad,Michael B Collins,Dimitri Karmpaliotis,Ziad A Ali,Sahil A Parikh,Torsten P Vahl,Amisha Patel,Tamim M Nazif,Khady N Fall,Akiko Maehara,Martin B Leon,Ajay J Kirtane,Jeffrey W Moses

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101262

2024-02-20

Abstract:Background: While not available for clinical use in the United States, dedicated drug-coated balloons (DCB) are currently under investigation for the management of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). Peripheral drug-coated balloons (P-DCB) have been used off-label for coronary ISR. Further data regarding this practice are needed. We aimed to describe outcomes in patients who underwent off-label P-DCB angioplasty for coronary ISR. Methods: We analyzed data on P-DCB angioplasty for coronary ISR at a single high-volume center between April 1, 2015, and December 30, 2017. Demographic and procedural details were collected, with systematic follow-up as clinically indicated. Results: Data from 31 patients treated with P-DCB angioplasty (mean age 68.0 ± 10.7 years) with coronary ISR (17 recurrent and 14 first time) were analyzed. Most patients presented with high-grade angina (81%) or myocardial infarction (13%). Treated ISR lesions were in native coronary arteries (68%), saphenous vein grafts (SVG, 23%), and the left internal mammary artery (10%). Diffuse intrastent ISR was common (69%) with a mean lesion length of 21.7 ± 12.4 mm. No postprocedural myocardial infarction occurred and 1 nonprocedural mortality occurred during index admission. At follow-up (median: 283, interquartile range [IQR]: 354 days), repeat angiography was performed in 19 patients (median: 212, IQR: 188 days), and 11 patients had target lesion recurrent ISR (Kaplan-Meier event-free survival estimate: 44.7%, 95% CI, 26.1%-76.5%). Conclusions: In the absence of availability of dedicated coronary DCB, treatment of coronary ISR using P-DCB angioplasty was feasible, although follow-up demonstrated continued risk for recurrent ISR in this high-risk population.
Drug‐coated Balloon for the Treatment of Small Vessel Disease: 9 Months of Angiographic Results and 12 Months of Clinical Outcomes of the PEPCAD China SVD Study

Juying Qian,Yizhe Wu,Chenguang Li,Jiasheng Yin,Guosheng Fu,Jian'an Wang,Yong He,Genshan Ma,Yundai Chen,Yong Xia,Lang Li,Fusui Ji,Hesong Zeng,Meng Wei,Shaoping Nie,Huigen Jin,Ben He,Yuguo Chen,Fan Liu,Hui Wang,Yingxian Sun,Bo Xu,Junbo Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30472

IF: 2.3

2023-01-01

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Whether the drug-coated balloons (DCBs)-alone strategy was superior to plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in treating SVD remains unknown.AIMS:We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCBs for the treatment of coronary de novo small vessel disease (SVD) and provide further evidence for extending the clinical indications of DCBs. (ChiCTR1800014966).METHODS:Eligible patients were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to receive DCB treatment or POBA in this prospective, multicenter clinical trial. The reference vessel diameter of lesions was visually assessed to be 2.0 to 2.75 mm. The primary endpoint of the study was angiographic in-segment late luminal loss (LLL) at the 9-month follow-up to demonstrate the superiority of DCB treatment to POBA in SVD. The composite clinical endpoints included clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), target lesion failure (TLF), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and thrombosis at the 12-month follow-up.RESULTS:A total of 270 patients were enrolled (181 for DCB, 89 for POBA) at 18 centers in China. The primary endpoint of 9-month in-segment LLL in the intention-to-treat population was 0.10 ± 0.33 mm with DCB and 0.25 ± 0.38 mm with POBA (p = 0.0027). This difference indicated significant superiority of DCB treatment (95% CI: -0.22, -0.04, psuperiority = 0.0068). The rates of the clinical endpoints-CD-TLR, TLF, and MACEs-were comparable between groups. No thrombosis events were reported.CONCLUSIONS:DCB treatment of de novo SVD was superior to POBA with lower 9-month in-segment LLL. The rates of clinical events were comparable between the two devices.
No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions

James N. Druckman,Matthew Levendusky,Audrey McLain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/AJPS.12325

Abstract:To what extent do partisan media sources shape public opinion? On its face, it would appear that the impact of partisan media is limited, given that it attracts a relatively small audience. We argue, however, that its influence may extend beyond its direct audience via a two-step communication flow. Specifically, those who watch and are impacted by partisan media outlets talk to and persuade others who did not watch. We present experimental results that demonstrate this process. We therefore show that previous studies may have significantly underestimated the effect of these outlets. We also illustrate that how the two-step communication flow works is contingent upon the precise composition of the discussion group (e.g., is it consistent of all fellow partisans or a mix of partisans?). We conclude by highlighting what our results imply about the study of media, preference formation, and partisan polarization.
Percutaneous coronary intervention of in-stent restenosis: A three-arm analysis from SWEDEHEART

S Von Koch,M Zhou,H C Rosen,S Zwackman,J Jurga,P Grimfjard,M Gotberg,M A Mohammad,D Erlinge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1445

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background During the last decades, there have been substantial improvements in treatment techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Yet, in-stent restenosis (ISR) continues to pose significant challenges as they account for 10% of all PCI cases and are associated with worse outcome compared to de-novo lesions. When assessing ISR with PCI, balloon angioplasty with drug-coated balloons (DCB) is frequently used. Purpose Despite frequent use of DCB, there is a lack of long-term data ensuring the safety of DCB for ISR as no randomized trial has extended beyond a 3-year follow-up. We aimed to study the long-term outcome and conducted a nationwide three-arm investigation on the outcome of ISR, comparing DCB with drug-eluting stents (DES) or plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) within a 5-year follow-up. Methods We conducted a nationwide analysis using the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. The SWEDEHEART registry was used to include any ISR undergoing coronary angiography between June 11, 2013, and December 31, 2020. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any PCI. The outcomes were analysed using a multivariable Cox regression model. Results A total of 9304 segments from 7987 patients were eligible. Compared to POBA, the use of DCB was associated with lower rates of TLR, hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.78), all-cause mortality, HR 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.72), and any PCI, HR 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66-0.93). No difference was observed for myocardial infarction. Compared to DES, the use of DCB was associated with higher rates of TLR, HR 1.24 (95% CI: 1.08-1.42). No difference was observed for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or any PCI. Conclusions In this nationwide analysis including any ISR undergoing PCI, the use of DCB showed superior outcomes compared to POBA within 5 years but higher rates of repeat revascularizations compared to DES. While DES demonstrated lower TLR rates than DCB, the lack of mortality differences indicates that DCB is a viable option, particularly for patients where DES might not be suitable, but that DES should be considered as the first line strategy.Table 1.5-year outcomeFigure 1.Kaplan-Meier curves

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty vs. Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis in the Routine Clinical Practice: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yong Zhu,Kesen Liu,Xiangyun Kong,Jing Nan,Ang Gao,Yan Liu,Hongya Han,Hong Li,Huagang Zhu,Jianwei Zhang,Yingxin Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.766088

IF: 3.6

2021-12-01

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Introduction: In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging issue despite the great advance of drug-eluting stents (DES). In addition, the consensus was lacking regarding the optimal strategy for DES-ISR. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate angiographic and clinical outcomes of the two most effective treatments DES vs. drug-eluting balloon (DCB) for patients with DES-ISR. Methods: This meta-analysis used the data from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were identified by a systematic search in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was regarded as the primary endpoint. In addition, the late angiographic outcomes and other clinical outcomes, namely, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events, were also included for analysis. Results: Five RCTs with about 1,193 patients were included in this meta-analysis for the analysis. For the primary endpoint, the overall pooled outcomes suggested repeat DES implantation was associated with a significant reduction in the term of TLR compared with DCB angioplasty (risk ratio = 1.53, 95% CI 1.15–2.04, p = 0.003). But no significant difference in angiographic outcomes and other clinical endpoints were observed between DES and DCB. In the subgroup analysis, DCB was inferior to new-generation DES (NG-DES)/everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in the term of TLR. In addition, this non-significant trend was also noted in the subgroup of the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) vs. DCB. For the angiographic endpoints, EES, not PES, was associated with larger minimum lumen diameter [mean difference (MD) = −0.25, 95% CI −0.38 to −0.11, p = 0.0003], lower percent diameter stenosis (MD = 7.29%, 95% CI 2.86–11.71%, p = 0.001), and less binary restenosis (OR = 2.20, 95% CI 1.18–4.11, p = 0.01). But NG-DES/EES was comparable to DCB in cardiac death, MI, and stent thrombosis. Conclusions: For the patients with DES-ISR, treatment with DES, especially NG-DES/EES could reduce the risk of TLR significantly compared to DCB at long-term follow-up.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Manoj Kumar,Nomesh Kumar,Mobeen Haider,Prakash Upreti,Abdul Rasheed Bahar,Mohammad Hamza,Mustafa Turkmani,Salman Abdul Basit,Kripa Rajak,Carson Middlebrook,Yasemin Bahar,Shafaqat Ali,Yasar Sattar,M Chadi Alraies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.06.028

2024-09-15

Abstract:In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the gradual narrowing of the stented coronary segment, presenting as angina or leading to an acute myocardial infarction. Although its incidence has decreased with the use of newer drug-eluting stents (DES), it still carries significant mortality and morbidity risks. We compared the 2 most common interventions for managing DES-related ISR: drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and DES. Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing DCB with DES in patients with DES-ISR. The Mantel-Haenszel method with a random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios. Five trials comprising 1,100 patients (577 in DCB and 523 in DES group) were included in the final study. The mean follow-up was 42 months. DCB was found to have a higher risk for target lesion revascularization (risk ratio 1.41, p = 0.02) compared with DES. No difference was observed in all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or stroke between the 2 intervention arms. In conclusion, management of DES-ISR with DCB has a higher risk of target lesion revascularization compared with re-stenting with DES. The 2 therapeutic interventions are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety profile.
One-Year Outcome of Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients Undergoing Initial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) for De Novo Lesion

Jun Goto,Takeshi Niizeki,Tadateru Iwayama,Toshiki Sasaki,Masafumi Watanabe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.56346

2024-03-17

Cureus

Abstract:Background: Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the major treatment option in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recently, drug-coated balloon (DCB) utilization has been increasing globally, leading to the expected new strategy of "stent-less PCI." This study aimed to evaluate the one-year outcome of DCB compared to DES. Methods: Patients who underwent initial PCI for de novo lesions in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021 (n=337) were subjected to retrospective analysis. Among them, 75 patients were treated with DCB, while 262 patients were treated with DES. Target lesion failure (TLF) was evaluated during the follow-up period. Results: The proportion of PCIs for ACS was significantly lower in the DCB group (DCB, n=23, 30.7% vs. DES, n=143, 54.6%; p=0.001). The median device diameter and length in the DES group were larger than those in the DCB group (DCB, 2.60 mm vs. DES, 2.98 mm; p<0.001; DCB, 19.1 mm vs. DES, 25.2 mm; p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the DCB and DES groups in lesion calcification. The proportion of ostial lesions was significantly higher in the DCB group (DCB, n=13, 17.3% vs. DES, n=21, 8.0%; p=0.018). The cumulative rate of TLF (DCB, n=5, 6.7% vs. DES, n=18, 6.9%; p=0.951) did not significantly differ between the DCB and DES groups. Conclusion: DCB may be as effective a strategy as DES in the patient who underwent initial PCI for a de novo lesion.

Innate immune cell populations function as initiators and effectors in Th2 cytokine responses.

Biolimus-coated Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis (BIO ASCEND ISR): a Randomised, Non-Inferiority Trial.

Drug-eluting Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Studies

Comparison of 2 Different Drug-Coated Balloons in In-Stent Restenosis

Two-year results and subgroup analyses of the PEPCAD China in-stent restenosis trial: A prospective, multicenter, randomized trial for the treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis.

A Randomized Comparison of Two Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis: the LONGTY ISR China Randomized Trial (LONGTY DCB Vs. SeQuent Please DCB).

A prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of paclitaxel-coated balloon versus paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis: results from the PEPCAD China ISR trial.

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for de novo culprit lesion in acute coronary syndromes: a report from nationwide registry in japan

Comparative long‐term efficacy and safety of two paclitaxel‐coated balloons with different coating strategies for the treatment of drug‐eluting coronary stent restenosis

Correction of Cassicinae Bonaparte, 1853 (Aves, Icteridae) to Cacicinae Bonaparte, 1853.

Drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus drug-eluting stent implantation in ACS patients with different angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis

Comprehensive clinical outcomes of drug‐coated balloon treatment for coronary artery disease. Insights from a single‐center experience

Long-term outcomes following DCB vs. DES for ISR treatment

A Non-inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents on Angiographic Outcomes for Coronary De Novo Lesions

Off-Label Use of Peripheral Paclitaxel Drug-Coated Balloons in Management of Recurrent Coronary In-Stent Restenosis

Drug‐coated Balloon for the Treatment of Small Vessel Disease: 9 Months of Angiographic Results and 12 Months of Clinical Outcomes of the PEPCAD China SVD Study

No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions

Percutaneous coronary intervention of in-stent restenosis: A three-arm analysis from SWEDEHEART

Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty vs. Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis in the Routine Clinical Practice: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

One-Year Outcome of Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients Undergoing Initial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) for De Novo Lesion