Lesion Preparation Before Coronary Intravascular Brachytherapy: A Comparison of Plain Balloon Versus Cutting/Scoring Balloon Angioplasty

Gal Sella MD , Chloe Kharsa MD, MSc , Mangesh Kritya MD , Devin Olek MS , Bin S. Teh MD , Muhammad Faraz Anwaar MD , Joseph Elias MD , Elia El Hajj MD , Albert E. Raizner MD , Andrew Farach MD , Neal S. Kleiman MD , Alpesh Shah MD
{"title":"Lesion Preparation Before Coronary Intravascular Brachytherapy: A Comparison of Plain Balloon Versus Cutting/Scoring Balloon Angioplasty","authors":"Gal Sella MD ,&nbsp;Chloe Kharsa MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Mangesh Kritya MD ,&nbsp;Devin Olek MS ,&nbsp;Bin S. Teh MD ,&nbsp;Muhammad Faraz Anwaar MD ,&nbsp;Joseph Elias MD ,&nbsp;Elia El Hajj MD ,&nbsp;Albert E. Raizner MD ,&nbsp;Andrew Farach MD ,&nbsp;Neal S. Kleiman MD ,&nbsp;Alpesh Shah MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Coronary intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) has remained as an effective treatment for recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, optimal lesion preparation techniques prior to radiation delivery remain undefined. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of IVBT after lesion preparation with either plain balloon angioplasty or cutting/scoring balloon angioplasty.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a retrospective analysis of 219 patients who underwent vascular brachytherapy for coronary ISR between June 2016 and January 2024 at the Houston Methodist Hospital. Patients were stratified based on the type of balloon used for lesion preparation: plain balloon (n = 140) or cutting/scoring balloon (n = 79). The primary end point was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1 year. Secondary end points included major adverse cardiovascular events, stent thrombosis, and bleeding complications.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between groups, except for older age in the cutting/scoring balloon group (67.0 ± 11.0 vs 64.0 ± 10.3 years; <em>P</em> = .047). Lesion length was comparable (28.01 ± 18.62 vs 26.49 ± 17.16 mm; <em>P</em> = .55). At 1-year follow-up, TLR rates were similar (26.6% vs 17.9%; <em>P</em> = .17), as were major adverse cardiovascular event rates (32.9% vs 35.0%; <em>P</em> = .86).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We observed no significant difference in 1-year and 3-year clinical outcomes compared to conventional plain balloon angioplasty. The trend toward higher TLR rates in the cutting/scoring balloon group warrants further investigation in larger, prospective studies. These findings suggest that lesion-specific factors, rather than balloon type alone, may be more important determinants of outcomes after IVBT for ISR.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73990,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","volume":"4 9","pages":"Article 103858"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772930325013006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Coronary intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) has remained as an effective treatment for recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, optimal lesion preparation techniques prior to radiation delivery remain undefined. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of IVBT after lesion preparation with either plain balloon angioplasty or cutting/scoring balloon angioplasty.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 219 patients who underwent vascular brachytherapy for coronary ISR between June 2016 and January 2024 at the Houston Methodist Hospital. Patients were stratified based on the type of balloon used for lesion preparation: plain balloon (n = 140) or cutting/scoring balloon (n = 79). The primary end point was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1 year. Secondary end points included major adverse cardiovascular events, stent thrombosis, and bleeding complications.

Results

Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between groups, except for older age in the cutting/scoring balloon group (67.0 ± 11.0 vs 64.0 ± 10.3 years; P = .047). Lesion length was comparable (28.01 ± 18.62 vs 26.49 ± 17.16 mm; P = .55). At 1-year follow-up, TLR rates were similar (26.6% vs 17.9%; P = .17), as were major adverse cardiovascular event rates (32.9% vs 35.0%; P = .86).

Conclusions

We observed no significant difference in 1-year and 3-year clinical outcomes compared to conventional plain balloon angioplasty. The trend toward higher TLR rates in the cutting/scoring balloon group warrants further investigation in larger, prospective studies. These findings suggest that lesion-specific factors, rather than balloon type alone, may be more important determinants of outcomes after IVBT for ISR.
冠状动脉血管内近距离治疗前病变准备:普通球囊与切割/评分球囊血管成形术的比较
背景冠状动脉血管内近距离放射治疗(IVBT)仍然是治疗复发性支架内再狭窄(ISR)的有效方法。然而,放射治疗前的最佳病变准备技术仍不明确。本研究评估了在病变准备后采用普通球囊血管成形术或切割/评分球囊血管成形术的临床结果。方法回顾性分析2016年6月至2024年1月在休斯顿卫理公会医院接受血管近距离治疗的219例冠状动脉ISR患者。根据用于病变准备的球囊类型对患者进行分层:普通球囊(n = 140)或切割/评分球囊(n = 79)。主要终点是1年的靶病变血运重建术(TLR)。次要终点包括主要不良心血管事件、支架血栓形成和出血并发症。结果各组间基线人口统计学特征相似,除切割/穿刺球囊组年龄较大外(67.0±11.0岁vs 64.0±10.3岁;P = 0.047)。病变长度具有可比性(28.01±18.62 vs 26.49±17.16 mm; P = 0.55)。在1年随访中,TLR率相似(26.6% vs 17.9%, P = 0.17),主要不良心血管事件发生率相似(32.9% vs 35.0%, P = 0.86)。结论与常规球囊血管成形术相比,我们观察到1年和3年的临床结果无显著差异。切割/穿刺球囊组TLR率较高的趋势值得在更大规模的前瞻性研究中进一步调查。这些发现表明,病变特异性因素,而不是单独的球囊类型,可能是IVBT治疗ISR后结果的更重要决定因素。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
48 days
×
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