{"title":"Three-Year Outcome of Drug Coated Balloon Angioplasty Following Atherectomy for Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions.","authors":"Taka-Aki Takamura, Chihiro Nakagawa, Miharu Masaki, Satori Akita, Minako Oda, Minoru Wakasa, Hironobu Akao, Michihiko Kitayama, Taketsugu Tsuchiya, Toshiki Ichikawa, Shunsuke Takama, Tohru Nakagawa","doi":"10.1002/ccd.70196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) following atherectomy for coronary arteries with severely calcified lesions. Of the 258 consecutive patients and 422 de novo lesions treated with DCB at Kanazawa Medical University Hospital, we retrospectively enrolled highly calcified de novo lesions treated with atherectomy, rotablator, and/or orbital atherectomy system (OAS), followed by the use of either DCB (94 cases, 191 lesions) or DES (159 cases, 216 lesions) were retrospectively examined. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR), and the secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (MACE) during 3 years of follow-up. Regarding patient background, there was a significant difference in age (All DCB vs. DES: 69.5 ± 11.4 vs. 73.2 ± 8.6; p < 0.001), and the DCB group included more dialysis cases (28.3% vs. 15.3%; p < 0.01). No significant difference was observed in the lesion background. The balloon size of the DCB was 2.56 ± 0.40 mm. Acute closure was not observed after DCB. Late lumen loss (LLL) was -0.07 ± 0.34 mm (DCB) versus 0.46 ± 0.65 mm (DES). Late lumen engagement (LLE) was observed in 56 lesions (56/129 [43.4%]) in the DCB group. As adjunctive treatment after atherectomy for calcified lesions, no significant difference was observed in TLR (16.2% vs. 13.4%; log-rank, p = 0.08) and MACE (18.3% vs. 16.2%; log-rank, p = 0.13). For highly calcified coronary lesions, relative to DES, treatment with DCB after atherectomy could provide clinically acceptable favorable results in terms of TLR and MACE at 3 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":520583,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.70196","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
We aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) following atherectomy for coronary arteries with severely calcified lesions. Of the 258 consecutive patients and 422 de novo lesions treated with DCB at Kanazawa Medical University Hospital, we retrospectively enrolled highly calcified de novo lesions treated with atherectomy, rotablator, and/or orbital atherectomy system (OAS), followed by the use of either DCB (94 cases, 191 lesions) or DES (159 cases, 216 lesions) were retrospectively examined. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR), and the secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (MACE) during 3 years of follow-up. Regarding patient background, there was a significant difference in age (All DCB vs. DES: 69.5 ± 11.4 vs. 73.2 ± 8.6; p < 0.001), and the DCB group included more dialysis cases (28.3% vs. 15.3%; p < 0.01). No significant difference was observed in the lesion background. The balloon size of the DCB was 2.56 ± 0.40 mm. Acute closure was not observed after DCB. Late lumen loss (LLL) was -0.07 ± 0.34 mm (DCB) versus 0.46 ± 0.65 mm (DES). Late lumen engagement (LLE) was observed in 56 lesions (56/129 [43.4%]) in the DCB group. As adjunctive treatment after atherectomy for calcified lesions, no significant difference was observed in TLR (16.2% vs. 13.4%; log-rank, p = 0.08) and MACE (18.3% vs. 16.2%; log-rank, p = 0.13). For highly calcified coronary lesions, relative to DES, treatment with DCB after atherectomy could provide clinically acceptable favorable results in terms of TLR and MACE at 3 years.
我们的目的是比较药物包被球囊(DCB)和药物洗脱支架(DES)在严重钙化病变冠状动脉粥样硬化切除术后的长期疗效和安全性。在金泽医科大学医院接受DCB治疗的258例连续患者和422例新发病变中,我们回顾性地纳入了用动脉粥样硬化切除术、旋转支架和/或眼眶动脉粥样硬化切除术(OAS)治疗的高度钙化新发病变,然后回顾性地研究了DCB(94例,191个病变)或DES(159例,216个病变)的使用情况。主要终点是靶病变血运重建术(TLR),次要终点是3年随访期间的主要心脏不良事件(MACE)。患者背景方面,年龄差异有统计学意义(DCB vs DES: 69.5±11.4 vs 73.2±8.6