Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stent combined with drug-coated balloon in the treatment of complex coronary artery lesions.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Xiaotao Li, Yuhong Yang, Ran Zhang, Dawei Yang, Xiaojie Chen, Jia Wang, Chenhao Zhang
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stent combined with drug-coated balloon in the treatment of complex coronary artery lesions.","authors":"Xiaotao Li, Yuhong Yang, Ran Zhang, Dawei Yang, Xiaojie Chen, Jia Wang, Chenhao Zhang","doi":"10.1097/MCA.0000000000001543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) combined with drug-coated balloons (DCB) in the treatment of complex coronary artery lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 305 patients with complex coronary artery lesions who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were retrospectively included in this study. The patients were divided into the DES combined with the DCB treatment group (hybrid group) and the DES-only treatment group (DES group), and the target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared between the two groups during 2-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). In the treated lesions of reference vessel diameters (RVD) ≥3 mm, there were no significant differences in coronary angiography and interventional characteristics between the two groups. In the treated lesion of RVD <3 mm, hybrid group had higher proportion of lesion preparation (P < 0.001) and a higher rate of residual stenosis after stent implantation (P < 0.001). During the 2-year follow-up, the clinical outcomes between the two groups showed no significant differences. After propensity score matching, there were still no significant differences between the two groups in the cumulative survival rates without TLR (95.8% vs. 94.2%; log-rank P = 0.560) or MACE (89.4% vs. 87.8%; log-rank P = 0.578) at 2-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>During the 2-year follow-up, DES combined with DCB treatment showed similar efficacy and safety compared with DES-only treatment in complex coronary artery lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10702,"journal":{"name":"Coronary artery disease","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Coronary artery disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCA.0000000000001543","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) combined with drug-coated balloons (DCB) in the treatment of complex coronary artery lesions.

Methods: In total, 305 patients with complex coronary artery lesions who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were retrospectively included in this study. The patients were divided into the DES combined with the DCB treatment group (hybrid group) and the DES-only treatment group (DES group), and the target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared between the two groups during 2-year follow-up.

Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). In the treated lesions of reference vessel diameters (RVD) ≥3 mm, there were no significant differences in coronary angiography and interventional characteristics between the two groups. In the treated lesion of RVD <3 mm, hybrid group had higher proportion of lesion preparation (P < 0.001) and a higher rate of residual stenosis after stent implantation (P < 0.001). During the 2-year follow-up, the clinical outcomes between the two groups showed no significant differences. After propensity score matching, there were still no significant differences between the two groups in the cumulative survival rates without TLR (95.8% vs. 94.2%; log-rank P = 0.560) or MACE (89.4% vs. 87.8%; log-rank P = 0.578) at 2-year follow-up.

Conclusion: During the 2-year follow-up, DES combined with DCB treatment showed similar efficacy and safety compared with DES-only treatment in complex coronary artery lesions.

药物洗脱支架联合药物包被球囊治疗复杂冠状动脉病变的安全性和有效性。
目的:探讨药物洗脱支架(DES)联合药物包被球囊(DCB)治疗复杂冠状动脉病变的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾性分析305例经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的复杂冠状动脉病变患者。将患者分为DES联合DCB治疗组(hybrid组)和DES单独治疗组(DES组),随访2年比较两组靶病变血运重建术(TLR)和主要心血管不良事件(MACE)。结果:两组患者基线临床特征比较,差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。在参考血管直径(RVD)≥3mm的治疗病变中,两组冠状动脉造影及介入特征无显著差异。结论:在2年的随访中,DES联合DCB治疗复杂冠状动脉病变的疗效和安全性与仅DES治疗相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Coronary artery disease
Coronary artery disease 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
190
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Coronary Artery Disease welcomes reports of original research with a clinical emphasis, including observational studies, clinical trials, translational research, novel imaging, pharmacology and interventional approaches as well as advances in laboratory research that contribute to the understanding of coronary artery disease. Each issue of Coronary Artery Disease is divided into four areas of focus: Original Research articles, Review in Depth articles by leading experts in the field, Editorials and Images in Coronary Artery Disease. The Editorials will comment on selected original research published in each issue of Coronary Artery Disease, as well as highlight controversies in coronary artery disease understanding and management. Submitted artcles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and​ peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信