Dens J, Holvoet W, McCutcheon K, Ungureanu C, Coussement P, Haine S, De Hemptinne Q, Sonck J, Eertmans W, Bennett J
Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
Department of Cardiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
Acta Cardiol. 2023 Feb;78(1):86-90. doi: 10.1080/00015385.2022.2058676. Epub 2022 Aug 16.
Balloon uncrossable coronary lesions are lesions that cannot be crossed with a conventional balloon. Multiple balloons have been designed to overcome this problem. The Blimp balloon has a very low scoring profile (0.6 mm) with a very high rated burst pressure (30 atmospheres). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this balloon compared to customary low-profile balloons.
We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which 126 patients with an uncrossable lesion were randomly (1:1 randomization) assigned to treatment first with the Blimp balloon or low-profile balloon. The primary endpoint was the success of crossing the lesion after initial failure with a microcatheter (group A) or with a conventional balloon (group B).
Overall, the first attempt of Blimp was successful in 29 out of 61 cases (48%) while the LP balloon immediately crossed in 30 out 67 cases (45%; = 0.761). Using a low-profile balloon in the BLIMP group after failure of the Blimp balloon increased the success to 64% (39 out of 61 cases). Using the Blimp balloon in the low-profile first group after failure of the low-profile balloon increased the success to 60% (40 out of 67 cases). After the placement of a guide catheter extension, the overall successful lesion crossing in the BLIMP group was 80% (49 out of 61 cases) compared to 76% (51 out of 67 cases) in the LP Balloon group ( = 0.327).
The Blimp balloon catheter showed no superiority to customary low-profile balloons in uncrossable lesions. It can however be complementary in treating uncrossable lesions.
球囊无法通过的冠状动脉病变是指无法用传统球囊通过的病变。已经设计了多种球囊来克服这一问题。Blimp球囊具有非常低的轮廓(0.6毫米)和非常高的额定爆破压力(30个大气压)。我们旨在评估该球囊与传统低轮廓球囊相比的疗效。
我们进行了一项多中心、前瞻性、随机、对照试验,将126例有无法通过病变的患者随机(1:1随机分组)分配为先用Blimp球囊或低轮廓球囊治疗。主要终点是在微导管(A组)或传统球囊(B组)首次失败后成功通过病变。
总体而言,Blimp球囊的首次尝试在61例中有29例成功(48%),而低轮廓球囊在67例中有30例立即通过(45%;P = 0.761)。在Blimp球囊失败后,在Blimp组中使用低轮廓球囊使成功率提高到64%(61例中有39例)。在低轮廓球囊失败后,在低轮廓优先组中使用Blimp球囊使成功率提高到60%(67例中有40例)。在放置引导导管延长装置后,Blimp组总体病变成功通过率为80%(61例中有49例),而低轮廓球囊组为76%(67例中有51例)(P = 0.327)。
在无法通过的病变中,Blimp球囊导管并不优于传统的低轮廓球囊。然而,它在治疗无法通过的病变中可以起到补充作用。