Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, Liaoning 110016, China.
Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Beijing 100191, China.
Chin Med J (Engl). 2020 Apr 20;133(8):899-908. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000743.
Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions remains challenging; a simple strategy has been preferred as of late, but the disadvantage is ostium stenosis or even occlusion of the side branch (SB). Only a few single-center studies investigating the combination of a drug-eluting stent in the main branch followed by a drug-eluting balloon in the SB have been reported. This prospective, multicenter, randomized study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) compared with regular balloon angioplasty (BA) in the treatment of non-left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions.
Between December 2014 and November 2015, a total of 222 consecutive patients with bifurcation lesions were enrolled in this study at ten Chinese centers. Patients were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to a PEB group (n = 113) and a BA group (n = 109). The primary efficacy endpoint was angiographic target lesion stenosis at 9 months. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints included target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, target lesion failure, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and thrombosis in target lesions. The main analyses performed in this clinical trial included case shedding analysis, base-value equilibrium analysis, effectiveness analysis, and safety analysis. SAS version 9.4 was used for the statistical analyses.
At the 9-month angiographic follow-up, the difference in the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion stenosis between the PEB (28.7% ± 18.7%) and BA groups (40.0% ± 19.0%) was -11.3% (95% confidence interval: -16.3% to -6.3%, Psuperiority <0.0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis, and similar results were recorded in the per-protocol analysis, demonstrating the superiority of PEB to BA. Late lumen loss was significantly lower in the PEB group than in the BA group (-0.06 ± 0.32 vs. 0.18 ± 0.34 mm, P < 0.0001). For intention-to-treat, there were no significant differences between PEB and BA in the 9-month percentages of MACCEs (0.9% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.16) or non-fatal myocardial infarctions (0 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.49). There were no clinical events of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, target lesion failure, all-cause death, cardiac death or target lesion thrombosis in either group.
In de novo non-left main coronary artery bifurcations treated with provisional T stenting, SB dilation with the PEB group demonstrated better angiographic results than treatment with regular BA at the 9-month follow-up in terms of reduced target lesion stenosis.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325817; https://clinicaltrials.gov.
冠状动脉分叉病变的治疗仍然具有挑战性;最近人们倾向于采用一种简单的策略,但缺点是开口狭窄甚至侧支(SB)闭塞。只有少数单中心研究报道了在主支中使用药物洗脱支架后再在 SB 中使用药物洗脱球囊的联合治疗。本前瞻性、多中心、随机研究旨在探讨紫杉醇洗脱球囊(PEB)与常规球囊血管成形术(BA)治疗非左主干冠状动脉分叉病变的安全性和有效性。
2014 年 12 月至 2015 年 11 月,10 家中国中心共纳入 222 例分叉病变患者进行本研究。患者按 1:1 比例随机分为 PEB 组(n=113)和 BA 组(n=109)。主要疗效终点为 9 个月时的血管造影靶病变狭窄。次要疗效和安全性终点包括靶病变血运重建、靶血管血运重建、靶病变失败、主要心脏和脑血管不良事件(MACCEs)、全因死亡、心脏死亡、非致死性心肌梗死和靶病变血栓形成。本临床试验的主要分析包括病例脱落分析、基础值均衡分析、有效性分析和安全性分析。SAS 版本 9.4 用于统计分析。
9 个月的血管造影随访时,PEB 组(28.7%±18.7%)和 BA 组(40.0%±19.0%)的主要疗效终点靶病变狭窄的差异为-11.3%(95%置信区间:-16.3%至-6.3%,P优越性<0.0001),意向治疗分析中结果相似,提示 PEB 优于 BA。PEB 组的晚期管腔丢失明显低于 BA 组(-0.06±0.32 与 0.18±0.34 mm,P<0.0001)。意向治疗中,PEB 组和 BA 组 9 个月的 MACCEs 发生率(0.9%比 3.7%,P=0.16)或非致死性心肌梗死发生率(0 比 0.9%,P=0.49)无显著差异。两组均无靶病变血运重建、靶血管血运重建、靶病变失败、全因死亡、心脏死亡或靶病变血栓形成的临床事件。
在采用临时 T 支架治疗的新发非左主干冠状动脉分叉病变中,与常规 BA 治疗相比,SB 扩张采用 PEB 组在 9 个月的随访中可获得更好的血管造影结果,表现为靶病变狭窄减少。
ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02325817;https://clinicaltrials.gov。