Gal Sella, Gera Gandelman, Alex Blatt, Jacob George, Haitham Abu Khadija, Omar Ayyad, Devin Olek, Bin S Teh, Yueh-Yun Lin, Anshuj Deva, Chloe Kharsa, Mangesh Kritya, Muhammad Faraz Anwaar, Joseph Elias, Elia El Hajj, Albert E Raizner, Andrew Farach, Neal S Kleiman, Alpesh Shah
{"title":"血管内近距离治疗与药物包被球囊治疗支架内再狭窄:双中心双策略比较。","authors":"Gal Sella, Gera Gandelman, Alex Blatt, Jacob George, Haitham Abu Khadija, Omar Ayyad, Devin Olek, Bin S Teh, Yueh-Yun Lin, Anshuj Deva, Chloe Kharsa, Mangesh Kritya, Muhammad Faraz Anwaar, Joseph Elias, Elia El Hajj, Albert E Raizner, Andrew Farach, Neal S Kleiman, Alpesh Shah","doi":"10.1016/j.carrev.2025.06.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In-stent restenosis remains a persistent challenge in interventional cardiology. While both intravascular brachytherapy (IVB) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been used to treat this condition, their comparative effectiveness has never been evaluated.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of IVB versus DCB for the treatment of in-stent restenosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This dual-center study compared 2-year outcomes between patients treated with IVB and DCB. Propensity score matching was performed for age, sex, vessel size, and ejection fraction. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularization (TLR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DCB treatment was associated with shorter procedure times median 52 IQR[40.0,68.0] vs 72 IQR[60.0,92.0] min, p < 0.01) and reduced contrast use (median 121 IQR[76.50,155.0] vs 140 IQR[100.0,200.0] mL, p = 0.03). In the propensity-matched cohort, MACE rates were similar (43.3 % vs 47.7 %, p = 0.55). DCB treatment demonstrated significantly lower TLR rates compared to IVB (4.4 % vs 18.9 %, p < 0.01) and reduced target vessel myocardial infarctions (3.3 % vs 13.3 %, p = 0.02). All-cause mortality (14.4 % vs 7.8 %, p = 0.15) and cardiac death rates (6.7 % vs 4.4 %, p = 0.52) were similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this first-ever comparison with 2-year follow-up, DCB was associated with similar MACE rates compared to IVB but demonstrated lower TLR rates. All-cause mortality and cardiac death rates were comparable. These findings may suggest that DCB offers superior efficacy for ISR treatment, though careful patient selection remains important when considering treatment modalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":47657,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intravascular brachytherapy versus drug-coated balloons for in-stent restenosis: A two-center two-strategy comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Gal Sella, Gera Gandelman, Alex Blatt, Jacob George, Haitham Abu Khadija, Omar Ayyad, Devin Olek, Bin S Teh, Yueh-Yun Lin, Anshuj Deva, Chloe Kharsa, Mangesh Kritya, Muhammad Faraz Anwaar, Joseph Elias, Elia El Hajj, Albert E Raizner, Andrew Farach, Neal S Kleiman, Alpesh Shah\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.carrev.2025.06.030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In-stent restenosis remains a persistent challenge in interventional cardiology. While both intravascular brachytherapy (IVB) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been used to treat this condition, their comparative effectiveness has never been evaluated.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of IVB versus DCB for the treatment of in-stent restenosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This dual-center study compared 2-year outcomes between patients treated with IVB and DCB. Propensity score matching was performed for age, sex, vessel size, and ejection fraction. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularization (TLR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DCB treatment was associated with shorter procedure times median 52 IQR[40.0,68.0] vs 72 IQR[60.0,92.0] min, p < 0.01) and reduced contrast use (median 121 IQR[76.50,155.0] vs 140 IQR[100.0,200.0] mL, p = 0.03). In the propensity-matched cohort, MACE rates were similar (43.3 % vs 47.7 %, p = 0.55). DCB treatment demonstrated significantly lower TLR rates compared to IVB (4.4 % vs 18.9 %, p < 0.01) and reduced target vessel myocardial infarctions (3.3 % vs 13.3 %, p = 0.02). All-cause mortality (14.4 % vs 7.8 %, p = 0.15) and cardiac death rates (6.7 % vs 4.4 %, p = 0.52) were similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this first-ever comparison with 2-year follow-up, DCB was associated with similar MACE rates compared to IVB but demonstrated lower TLR rates. All-cause mortality and cardiac death rates were comparable. These findings may suggest that DCB offers superior efficacy for ISR treatment, though careful patient selection remains important when considering treatment modalities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2025.06.030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2025.06.030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:支架内再狭窄仍然是介入心脏病学的一个持续挑战。虽然血管内近距离放射治疗(IVB)和药物包被球囊(DCB)都被用于治疗这种疾病,但它们的相对有效性从未被评估过。目的:比较IVB与DCB治疗支架内再狭窄的疗效和安全性。方法:这项双中心研究比较了IVB和DCB治疗患者的2年预后。对年龄、性别、血管大小和射血分数进行倾向评分匹配。主要结局包括全因死亡率和靶病变血运重建(TLR)。结果:DCB治疗与更短的手术时间相关,中位52 IQR[40.0,68.0] vs 72 IQR[60.0,92.0] min, p结论:在与2年随访的首次比较中,与IVB相比,DCB与相似的MACE率相关,但表现出更低的TLR率。全因死亡率和心脏死亡率具有可比性。这些发现可能表明DCB在ISR治疗中具有优越的疗效,尽管在考虑治疗方式时,仔细选择患者仍然很重要。
Intravascular brachytherapy versus drug-coated balloons for in-stent restenosis: A two-center two-strategy comparison.
Background: In-stent restenosis remains a persistent challenge in interventional cardiology. While both intravascular brachytherapy (IVB) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been used to treat this condition, their comparative effectiveness has never been evaluated.
Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of IVB versus DCB for the treatment of in-stent restenosis.
Methods: This dual-center study compared 2-year outcomes between patients treated with IVB and DCB. Propensity score matching was performed for age, sex, vessel size, and ejection fraction. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularization (TLR).
Results: DCB treatment was associated with shorter procedure times median 52 IQR[40.0,68.0] vs 72 IQR[60.0,92.0] min, p < 0.01) and reduced contrast use (median 121 IQR[76.50,155.0] vs 140 IQR[100.0,200.0] mL, p = 0.03). In the propensity-matched cohort, MACE rates were similar (43.3 % vs 47.7 %, p = 0.55). DCB treatment demonstrated significantly lower TLR rates compared to IVB (4.4 % vs 18.9 %, p < 0.01) and reduced target vessel myocardial infarctions (3.3 % vs 13.3 %, p = 0.02). All-cause mortality (14.4 % vs 7.8 %, p = 0.15) and cardiac death rates (6.7 % vs 4.4 %, p = 0.52) were similar between groups.
Conclusions: In this first-ever comparison with 2-year follow-up, DCB was associated with similar MACE rates compared to IVB but demonstrated lower TLR rates. All-cause mortality and cardiac death rates were comparable. These findings may suggest that DCB offers superior efficacy for ISR treatment, though careful patient selection remains important when considering treatment modalities.
期刊介绍:
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine (CRM) is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original laboratory and clinical investigations related to revascularization therapies in cardiovascular medicine. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine publishes articles related to preclinical work and molecular interventions, including angiogenesis, cell therapy, pharmacological interventions, restenosis management, and prevention, including experiments conducted in human subjects, in laboratory animals, and in vitro. Specific areas of interest include percutaneous angioplasty in coronary and peripheral arteries, intervention in structural heart disease, cardiovascular surgery, etc.