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.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?