Joh Hyun Sung, Kwon Woochan, Shin Doosup, Lee Seung Hun, Hong Young Joon, Hong David, Lee Sang Yoon, Park Hanbit, Kim Sunwon, Lee Sang Yeub, Koh Jin-Sin, Kim Hangyul, Kim Chan Joon, Choo Eun Ho, Yoon Hyuck-Jun, Park Sang Don, Jeon Ki-Hyun, Bae Jang-Whan, Ahn Sung Gyun, Kim Sung Eun, Choi Ki Hong, Park Taek Kyu, Yang Jeong Hoon, Song Young Bin, Hahn Joo-Yong, Choi Seung-Hyuk, Gwon Hyeon-Cheol, Lee Joo Myung
Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
JACC Asia. 2024 Jun 18;4(7):519-531. doi: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2024.04.007. eCollection 2024 Jul.
There are limited clinical data on drug-coated balloon (DCB)-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with drug-eluting stent (DES)-only PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions.
The goal of the current study was to investigate the efficacy of DCB in patients undergoing PCI for complex coronary artery lesions.
From an institutional registry of patients with de novo complex coronary artery lesions, 126 patients treated with DCB-based PCI were compared with 234 propensity score-matched patients treated with DES-only PCI. Complex coronary artery lesions were defined as the presence of at least 1 of the following: bifurcation, chronic total occlusion, unprotected left main disease, long lesion ≥38 mm, multivessel disease, lesion requiring ≥3 devices, or severe calcification. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.
Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. DCB-based PCI showed a comparable risk of TVF vs DES-based PCI (7.6% vs 8.1%; HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.33-1.99; = 0.638). The risks of cardiac death (5.0% vs 5.7%; HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.24-2.49), target vessel-related myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 1.3%; HR: 2.65; 95% CI: 0.26-27.06), and target vessel revascularization (3.5% vs 2.0%; HR: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.30-5.67) were also comparable between the 2 groups.
DCB-based PCI showed comparable risks of TVF vs those of DES-only PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. DCB might be considered as a suitable alternative device to DES in patients undergoing complex PCI. (Long-term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Patient Undergoing CABG or PCI; NCT03870815).
与仅使用药物洗脱支架(DES)的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)相比,基于药物涂层球囊(DCB)的PCI在复杂冠状动脉病变患者中的临床数据有限。
本研究的目的是调查DCB在接受PCI治疗复杂冠状动脉病变患者中的疗效。
从新发复杂冠状动脉病变患者的机构登记中,将126例接受基于DCB的PCI治疗的患者与234例倾向评分匹配的仅接受DES-PCI治疗的患者进行比较。复杂冠状动脉病变定义为存在以下至少一项:分叉病变、慢性完全闭塞、无保护左主干病变、长病变≥38mm、多支血管病变、需要≥3个器械的病变或严重钙化。主要终点是2年时的靶血管失败(TVF),这是一个包括心源性死亡、靶血管相关心肌梗死和靶血管血运重建的复合终点。
两组的基线特征具有可比性。基于DCB的PCI与基于DES的PCI相比,TVF风险相当(7.6%对8.1%;HR:0.81;95%CI:0.33-1.99;P=0.638)。两组的心源性死亡风险(5.0%对5.7%;HR:0.78;95%CI:0.24-2.49)、靶血管相关心肌梗死风险(0.9%对1.3%;HR:2.65;95%CI:0.26-27.06)和靶血管血运重建风险(3.5%对2.0%;HR:1.30;95%CI:0.30-5.67)也相当。
在复杂冠状动脉病变患者中,基于DCB的PCI与仅使用DES的PCI相比,TVF风险相当。在接受复杂PCI的患者中,DCB可被视为DES的合适替代器械。(冠状动脉旁路移植术或PCI患者的长期结局和预后因素;NCT03870815)