Search

OBJECTIVES We investigated the clinical efficacy of a paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) with a novel matrix coating and reduced drug concentration in comparison with a widely used PCB with iopromide excipient. METHODS We prospectively enrolled patients with restenosis in drug-eluting stents. All patients were treated with a novel low-dose PCB with citrate-based excipient (Agent PCB). Angiographic follow-up was scheduled at 6-8 months. Outcomes were compared against those of patients treated with iopromide excipient PCB (SeQuent Please PCB) enrolled in a trial with identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was percent diameter stenosis (%DS) at follow-up angiography. The primary hypothesis was that the investigational device would be non-inferior to the control device (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02367495). RESULTS One hundred twenty-five patients with 151 lesions were enrolled. Mean age was 68.1 ± 10.2 years, 40.8% had diabetes mellitus and 80.1% had focal morphology in-stent restenosis. Follow-up angiography data at 6-8 months was available for 102 (81.6%) patients. The Agent PCB was non-inferior to the SeQuent Please PCB in terms of the primary endpoint (38.9 ± 17.5 vs. 38.1 ± 21.5%; p non-inferiority = 0.0056). Late lumen loss was also comparable between the groups (0.35 ± 0.55 vs. 0.37 ± 0.59; p = 0.71). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of TLR (27.7% vs. 22.1%; p = 0.31), death or myocardial infarction (4.2% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.92) or target lesion thrombosis (1.0% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.93). CONCLUSION In patients with DES restenosis, angioplasty with a novel PCB with citrate-based excipient was non-inferior to PCB with iopromide excipient in terms of angiographic outcome.

We investigated the clinical efficacy of a paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) with a novel matrix coating and reduced drug concentration in comparison with a widely used PCB with iopromide excipient.We prospectively enrolled patients with restenosis in drug-eluting stents. All patients were treated with a novel low-dose PCB with citrate-based excipient (Agent PCB). Angiographic follow-up was scheduled at 6-8 months. Outcomes were compared against those of patients treated with iopromide excipient PCB (SeQuent Please PCB) enrolled in a trial with identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was percent diameter stenosis (%DS) at follow-up angiography. The primary hypothesis was that the investigational device would be non-inferior to the control device (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02367495).One hundred twenty-five patients with 151 lesions were enrolled. Mean age was 68.1 ± 10.2 years, 40.8% had diabetes mellitus and 80.1% had focal morphology in-stent restenosis. Follow-up angiography data at 6-8 months was available for 102 (81.6%) patients. The Agent PCB was non-inferior to the SeQuent Please PCB in terms of the primary endpoint (38.9 ± 17.5 vs. 38.1 ± 21.5%; pIn patients with DES restenosis, angioplasty with a novel PCB with citrate-based excipient was non-inferior to PCB with iopromide excipient in terms of angiographic outcome.

Background Angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) is recommended for treatment of patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) according to European clinical practice guidelines. Most clinical trials have investigated iopromide-based PCB and there is a paucity of data comparing efficacy against butyryl-tri-hexyl citrate (BTHC)-based PCB. Our aim was to compare the performance of two widely-used PCB in the treatment of coronary ISR. Methods We analysed patients treated with BTHC- or iopromide-PCB for treatment of drug-eluting stent ISR in the setting of 2 consecutive trials with identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was diameter stenosis at 6–8 month angiographic surveillance. The secondary endpoint of interest was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target-lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1 year. Multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Results In total, 264 patients were treated with BTHC-PCB (n = 127) or iopromide-PCB (n = 137). Baseline patient characteristics were similar for both groups. Post-procedure stenosis was slightly larger with BTHC-PCB (22.3 [SD 8.2]% vs. 18.4 [SD 9.9]%, P = 0.001). At 6–8 month angiography, diameter stenosis was 40.4 [SD 21.9]% vs. 37.4 [SD 21.4]% in the BTHC-PCB and iopromide-PCB groups, respectively (P = 0.16, Padjusted = 0.32). At 1 year, death, MI or TLR occurred in 29 (23.2%) vs. 32 (23.4%) patients in the BTHC-PCB and iopromide-PCB groups, respectively (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.62–1.70], P = 0.91, Padjusted = 0.96). Conclusions In patients undergoing intervention for ISR, angioplasty with BTHC-PCB showed similar angiographic and clinical results at 1 year compared with iopromide-PCB.

Angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) is recommended for treatment of patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) according to European clinical practice guidelines. Most clinical trials have investigated iopromide-based PCB and there is a paucity of data comparing efficacy against butyryl-tri-hexyl citrate (BTHC)-based PCB. Our aim was to compare the performance of two widely-used PCB in the treatment of coronary ISR.We analysed patients treated with BTHC- or iopromide-PCB for treatment of drug-eluting stent ISR in the setting of 2 consecutive trials with identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was diameter stenosis at 6-8month angiographic surveillance. The secondary endpoint of interest was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target-lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1year. Multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between groups.In total, 264 patients were treated with BTHC-PCB (n=127) or iopromide-PCB (n=137). Baseline patient characteristics were similar for both groups. Post-procedure stenosis was slightly larger with BTHC-PCB (22.3 [SD 8.2]% vs. 18.4 [SD 9.9]%, P=0.001). At 6-8month angiography, diameter stenosis was 40.4 [SD 21.9]% vs. 37.4 [SD 21.4]% in the BTHC-PCB and iopromide-PCB groups, respectively (P=0.16, PIn patients undergoing intervention for ISR, angioplasty with BTHC-PCB showed similar angiographic and clinical results at 1year compared with iopromide-PCB.

Angioplasty with drug-coated balloons (DCB) is recommended for treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) in European clinical practice guidelines. However there is a paucity of study data comparing different DCB devices. Our aim was to compare the performance of two widely-used paclitaxel