Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Efficacy of a seal-wing paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheters in the treatment of bare metal stent restenosis

BMC Cardiovascular DisordersBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:168

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0602-6

Received: 4 January 2017

Accepted: 20 June 2017

Published: 26 June 2017

Abstract

Background

Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of seal-wing paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheters (PEB) with iopromide-coated PEB and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for treating bare metal stent restenosis (BMS-ISR).

Methods

We enrolled 64 patients with 69 BMS-ISR. The control group comprised patients from the iopromide-PEB and EES arms of a previous TIS study. The primary end-point was 12-month in-segment late lumen loss (LLL). Secondary end-points included incidence of binary in-stent restenosis and 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Results

Compared to iopromide-coated PEB, seal-wing PEB was associated with significantly higher 12-month LLL (0.30 vs. 0.02 mm; p < 0.0001), repeated binary restenosis (28.12% vs. 8.7%; p = 0.012), 12-month MACE (26.98% vs. 10.29%; p = 0.003), and target vessel revascularization (TVR; 20.63% vs. 7.35%; p = 0.009).

Compared to EES, no significant differences were found in the 12-month LLL (0.30 vs. 0.19 mm; p = 1.000), repeated binary restenosis (28.12% vs. 19.12%; p = 0.666), 12-month MACE (26.98% vs. 19.12%; p = 0.102) or TVR (20.63% vs. 16.18%; p = 0.360).

Conclusion

BMS-ISR treatment using seal-wing PEB led to significantly higher 12-month LLL, repeated binary restenosis, MACE, and TVR compared to iopromide-coated PEB. However, no significant differences were found in comparison with EES.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01735825

Keywords

In-stent restenosis Paclitaxel-elution balloon Drug-eluting stent

Introduction

Current treatments for in-stent restenosis utilize drug-eluting stents (DES) or drug-eluting balloon catheters (DEB) with locally released antiproliferative drugs. In contrast to DES, DEB allow short-term passage of the active substance (paclitaxel) into the vascular wall, preventing hyperproliferation of smooth muscle cells [1, 2]. Different paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheters (PEB) show varying efficacy, precluding discussion of “class effect” [3]. We demonstrated that in BMS-ISR treatment, iopromide-coated PEB resulted in significantly lower 12-month late lumen loss (LLL) compared to EES [4].

In our present study, we aimed to compare the effects of BMS-ISR treatment using PEB with different methods of paclitaxel binding to their surface.

Methods

Patients and study design

Our prospective, non-randomised study included consecutive adult patients (>18 years of age) with BMS-ISR (≥50% diameter stenosis; DS) who were treated with seal-wing PEB (Protége) in the Cathlab of University Hospital Ostrava in 2013–2015. The patients were followed 12 month after intervention and the study was finished in December 2016. The control group comprised patients with BMS-ISR who were treated using iopromide-coated PEB (Sequent Please) and EES (Promus; Pt/Cr metallic platform) in the previous randomized part of the TIS study [3]. The main exclusion criteria were concomitant diseases carrying expected survival times of <12 months or limiting the possibility of control coronary angiography (e.g., advanced renal failure), or inability to undergo long-term dual antiplatelet treatment (e.g., due to aspirin or clopidogrel allergy, bleeding complications, etc.).

The primary end-point was in-segment LLL at 12 months as measured by quantitative control angiography (QCA) [5]. Secondary end-points were the incidence of binary ISR (≥50% DS) and the overall incidence of 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR).

Interventions

PCI was performed under standard conditions from the radial or femoral approach, using a 6F guiding catheter and an Axiom X-ray system (Siemens AG, Forchheim, Germany).The patients were pre-treated with aspirin and clopidogrel (600 mg loading dose). Full anticoagulation was achieved by administering 100 IU/kg non-fractionated heparin, with a target activated clotting time of 250–300 s.

To pre-dilate the lesions and prevent any edge dissection, we used relatively shorter or scoring balloon catheters. Following predilatation, the PEB Protége (Blue Medical, Helmond, the Netherlands) was inflated for 30s at the recommended pressure. The seal-wing PEB Protége has paclitaxel (3 μg/mm2) tightly bound directly to the balloon catheter surface between the wings and hydrophilic coating prior to folding. This coating prevents releasing particles during bending of the balloon or transition to the stenosis. Paclitaxel, not coating, is only released when the balloon touches the vessel wall [6, 7].

Post-dilatation was performed using a non-compliant balloon catheter in the case of a suboptimal outcome, and another bailout stent was implanted in the case of edge dissection. All patients received standard therapy after coronary intervention. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin (100 mg) and clopidogrel (75 mg) was administered daily for three months following PEB dilatation.

Follow-up

Clinical follow-up was performed at 6 and 12 months. Angiographic follow-up was performed at 12 months (±2 months) unless needed earlier. All deaths were considered cardiac-related unless clearly from non-cardiac causes. Acute myocardial infarction was defined according to the third universal definition of myocardial infarction of the ESC [8], and stent thrombosis was defined based on ARC criteria [9].

Angiographic follow-up

Prior to imaging, patients were administered intracoronary isosorbide dinitrate (1 mg). Imaging was performed using appropriate orthogonal projections to best avoid potential shortening or overlap of the reporting segment and lateral branches. Similar projections were used at the 12-month coronary angiography. Lesion type and ISR were evaluated in an in-segment section ±5 mm from the proximal and distal edges of the stent using ACC/AHA criteria [10] and Mehran’s classification [11]. Angiographic parameters were evaluated off-line using syngo Quantification software version 2007 (Siemens AG, Forchheim, Germany). The following parameters were measured: minimum lumen diameter (MLD), reference lumen diameter (RefD = ½ proximal + distal diameter), acute gain, lesion length, diameter of the stenosis (%DS), and late lumen loss (LLL = MLD post-intervention − MLD control). Binary ISR was defined as DS ≥50% in the stented segment.

Statistical analysis

The sample size calculation was based on the previous TIS study. The 12-month difference in LLL 0.24 (±0.27) mm with alpha type I error of 5%, and beta test strength of 80% was used to determine the required group size of 64 per arm.

Normally distributed continuous variables are presented as mean and standard deviation, and were compared using Student’s two-sample t-test. Continuous variables with non-normal distribution are presented as median and range, and were compared using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical variables are presented as count and percentage, and were compared using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. Kaplan-Meier curves are used to display time-to-event data, which were compared using the log-rank test. Multiple logistic regression (stepwise forward method) was used to identify the most significant predictive factors for repeated binary restenosis, with adjustment for diabetes mellitus and other possible confounding factors. Each odds ratio (OR) is expressed with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Evaluation was based on intention-to-treat. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22.

Results

The course of the study is shown in the CONSORT study flow diagram (Fig. 1). We included 64 patients with 69 BMS-ISR lesions, all of whom were treated with seal-wing PEB. Table 1 presents the baseline demographic, clinical, angiographic, and ISR characteristics of the study group, with comparison to the control groups from the TIS study.
Fig. 1

CONSORT study flow diagram

Table 1

Baseline parameters

 

Seal-wing PEB

Iopromide-coated PEB

EES

p

Seal-wing vs. iopromide- PEB

Seal-wing PEB vs. EES

Demographic parameters

Patients/ ISR lesions, n

64/69

68/74

68/74

  

Male/female

49 (76.56%)/

43 (63.24%)/

46 (67.65%)/

0.288c

0.762c

15 (23.44%)

25 (36.74%)

22 (32.35%)

Age, years

65.25 ± 11.01a

65.6 ± 10.9a

65.5 ± 10.6a

1.000d

1.000d

Body mass index, kg/m2

28.38 ± 4.93a/21.19b

28.7 ± 4.0a/19.23b

29.3 ± 4.2a/18.61b

1.000f

0.255f

Ejection fraction, %

52.31 ± 10.01a/55.00b

49.74 ± 11.95a/50.0b

49.57 ± 11.44a/50.0b

0.732f

0.729f

Diabetes mellitus

18 (28.12%)

17 (25.00%)

18 (26.47%)

1.000c

1.000c

Renal insufficiency

2 (3.12%)

2 (2.94%)

7 (10.29%)

1.000e

0.495e

CABG

6 (9.38%)

3 (4.41%)

6 (8.82%)

1.000e

1.000e

Ever smoked

31 (48.44%)

31 (45.59%)

29 (42.65%)

1.000e

1.000c

Previous MI

31 (48.44%)

43 (63.24%)

41 (60.29%)

0.117c

0.258c

2VD/3VD

43 (67.19%)

38 (55.88%)

41 (60.29%)

1.000c

1.000c

Multi ISR

5 (7.81%)

4 (5.88%)

5 (7.35%)

1.000e

1.000c

Baseline PCI

ACSy (STEMI/NSTEMI)

37 (57.81%)

45 (66.18%)

50 (73.53%)

0.966c

0.171c

stable AP

27 (42.19%)

23 (33.82%)

18 (26.47%)

Type of lesion

 

B2/C

47 (68.12%)

51 (68.92%)

47 (63.51%)

1.000c

1.000c

Lesion localization

LAD/RD

34 (49.28%)

35 (47.30%)

40 (54.05%)

1.000e

1.000e

RCx/OM

15 (21.74%)

16 (21.62%)

10 (13.51%)

RCA

18 (26.09%)

22 (29.73%)

22 (29.73%)

SVG

2 (2.9%)

1 (1.35%)

2 (2.70%)

Diameter of the previous stent, mm

3.09 ± 0.48a/3.00b

3.18 ± 0.43a/3.0b

3.20 ± 0.41a/3.0b

0.390f

0.225f

Length of the previous stent, mm

25.67 ± 15.48a/20.00b

22.65 ± 11.70a/19.0b

19.39 ± 9.27a/16.0b

0.720f

0.012f

In-stent restenosis

ACSy, STEMI/NSTEMI

19 (29.69%)

24 (35.29%)

25 (36.76%)

1.000e

0.333c

Stable AP

42 (65.62%)

41 (60.29%)

33 (48.53%)

Other, silent ischemia

4 (6.25%)

3 (4.41%)

10 (14.71%)

Time to ISR, months

12.49 ± 11.06a/7.00b

12.10 ± 8.47a/9.0b

16.51 ± 9.49a/24.0b

1.000f

0.042f

Type of ISR

     

I (focal; all)

25 (36.23%)

30 (40.54%)

21 (28.38%)

1.000e

1.000e

II (diffuse)

33 (47.83%)

34 (45.95%)

35 (47.30%)

III (proliferative)

6 (8.7%)

5 (6.76%)

8 (10.81%)

IV (occlusion)

5 (7.25%)

5 (6.76%)

10 (13.51%)

Periprocedural parameters

Cutting predilatation

20 (28.99%)

16 (21.62%)

5 (6.76%)

0.933c

0.002c

ISR; PEB/EES diameter, mm

3.27 ± 0.47a/3.17b

3.32 ± 0.39a/3.5b

3.31 ± 0.43a/3.5b

1.000f

1.000f

ISR; PEB/EES length, mm

23.19 ± 12.98a/20.00b

22.53 ± 8.13a/20.0b

28.47 ± 12.76a/24.0b

1.000f

0.0003f

Postdilatation, atm

13.48 ± 2.34a/12.00b

14.84 ± 2.77a/16.0b

14.11 ± 2.45a/12.0b

0.009f

0.411f

Second stent implantation

8 (11.59%)

11 (14.86%)

11 (14.86%)

1.000c

1.000c

Crossover to DES

2 (2.9%)

2 (2.7%)

-

1.000c

-

Qualitative data are given as n (%); quantitative data as amean (± standard deviation) and bmedian

cchi-square test; dStudent T-test; eFisher’s exact test; fMann–Whitney U test

We obtained 12-month clinical data for 63 patients with BMS-ISR (98.44%; 95%CI: 91.6–99.96%) and 12-month QCA was performed in 64 lesions (92.76%; 95%CI: 83.89–97.61%).

Angiographic parameters are provided in Table 2. Baseline and early post-procedural angiographic results (MLD, RefD, acute gain, and residual%DS) did not significantly differ between the seal-wing PEB and iopromide-coated PEB groups. However, 12-month follow-up results showed significantly lower MLD and RefD, and higher incidence of repeated binary restenosis, higher DS%, and LLL (primary end-point) in the seal-wing PEB group compared to the iopromide-coated PEB group (p values: 0.0006, 0.039, 0.012, <0.0001, and < 0.0001, respectively).
Table 2

Baseline, postprocedural, and 12-month QCA parameters

 

Seal-wing PEB

Iopromide-coated PEB

EES

p

Seal-wing vs. iopromide- PEB

Seal-wing PEB vs. EES

Patients/lesions, n

59/64

63/69

62/68

 

Preprocedural Parameters - ISR

Minimal lumen diameter, mm

Mean

0.86

0.92

0.79

1.000a

0.732a

SD

0.46

0.45

0.48

Median

0.93

1.00

0.77

Reference diameter, mm

Mean

2.50

2.64

2.66

0.240a

0.087a

SD

0.43

0.47

0.45

Median

2.45

2.63

2.66

% Diameter stenosis

Mean

74.3

71.8

78.0

0.939a

0.372a

SD

14.5

13.9

13.4

Median

73.0

70.0

76.0

Post-procedural Parameters - Post re-PCI

Minimal lumen diameter, mm

Mean

2.09

2.18

2.51

1.000a

<0.0001a

SD

0.45

0.39

0.38

Median

1.99

2.13

2.49

Reference diameter, mm

Mean

2.72

2.79

3.01

0.756a

0.0003a

SD

0.42

0.41

0.40

Median

2.63

2.79

2.96

Acute gain, mm

Mean

1.23

1.25

1.72

1a

<0.0001a

SD

0.53

0.54

0.47

Median

1.19

1.12

1.69

% Diameter residual stenosis

Mean

21.5

19.5

16.3

0.153a

<0.0001a

SD

7.9

7.4

5.9

Median

23.5

20.0

16.0

12-month QCA parameters

Minimal lumen diameter, mm

Mean

1.63

2.09

2.07

0.0006a

0.003a

SD

0.78

0.57

0.80

Median

1.68

2.13

2.23

Reference diameter, mm

Mean

2.62

2.81

2.96

0.039a

0.0003a

SD

0.53

0.48

0.50

Median

2.56

2.81

2.86

% Diameter stenosis

Mean

42.4

26.2

30.9

<0.0001a

0.009a

SD

27.9

18.0

24.6

Median

33.5

22.0

21.5

Late lumen loss, mm

Mean

0.47

0.09

0.44

<0.0001a

1.000

SD

0.57

0.44

0.73

Median

0.30

0.02

0.19

Binary restenosis (%DS˃50%)

(n/%)

18 (28.12%)

6 (8.7%)

13 (19.12%)

0.012b

0.666b

aMann–Whitney U test; bchi-square test

With regards to early post-procedure results, compared to the EES group, the seal-wing PEB group showed lower MLD and RefD, and higher residual DS% (p values: ≤0.0001, 0.0003, and <0.0001, respectively) due to significantly lower acute gain (p ≤ 0.0001). These significant differences in MLD, RefD, and DS% persisted at the 12-month follow-up (p values: 0.003, 0.0003, and 0.009, respectively). However, the primary end-point of LLL did not differ between the seal-wing PEB and EES groups (p = 1.000). The between-group difference in the incidence of repeated binary restenosis was also non-significant (p = 0.666).

Clinical follow-up revealed that compared to the iopromide-coated PEB group, the seal-wing PEB group showed a significantly higher incidence of 12-month MACE (p = 0.003) based on the higher incidence of repeated TVR (p = 0.009). In contrast, no difference in clinical end-points was found between the seal-wing PEB and EES groups (p = 0.102) (Table 3).
Table 3

12-month clinical follow-up

 

Seal-wing PEB

Iopromide-coated PEB

EES

p

Seal-wing vs. iopromide- PEB

Seal-wing PEB vs. EES

Patients/lesions, n

63/64

68/74

68/74

  

MACE all, n(%)

17 (26.98%)

7 (10.29%)

13 (19.12%)

0.003a

0.102a

CV death, n(%)

0

1 (1.47%)

1 (1.47%)

1.000b

1.000b

AIM, n(%)

4 (6.35%)

1 (1.47%)

1 (1.47%)

0.468b

0.468b

TVR, n(%)

13 (20.63%)

5 (7.35%)

11 (16.18%)

0.009a

0.360a

Event-free survivors, n(%)

46 (73.02%)

61 (89.71%)

55 (80.88%)

0.027a

0.666a

AP (CCS), n(%)

0–1

38 (82.61%)

48 (78.69%)

43 (78.18%)

1.000b

1.000b

2

7 (15.22%)

13 (21.31%)

12 (21.82%)

NYHA, n(%)

1

13 (28.26%)

14 (22.95%)

20 (36.36%)

1.000b

1.000b

2

31 (67.39%)

44 (72.13%)

31 (56.36%)

3

2 (4.35%)

3 (4.92%)

4 (7.27%)

achi-square test; bFisher’s exact test

Figure 2 presents estimates of event-free survival (EFS) among patients with BMS-ISR. The log-rank test revealed significant differences between treatment groups in terms of EFS (time to MACE, p = 0.002). This difference was mainly based on the significantly lower average EFS in the seal-wing PEB group (13.67 months; 95%CI: 13.39–13.94) compared to the iopromide-coated PEB group (12.17 months; 95%CI: 11.16–13.19; p = 0.0007). There was no difference between the seal-wing PEB and EES groups (14.22 months; 95% CI 13.40–15.05; p = 0.218).
Fig. 2

Event-free survival

The 12-month LLL was significantly higher in the seal-wing PEB group compared to the iopromide-coated PEB group, even in the high-risk subgroups: diabetes patients, ISR lesions ˃10 mm (type II–IV), and vessel diameter < 3 mm (p values: 0.024, 0.0006, and <0.0001, respectively). On the other hand, no difference in LLL was found between the seal-wing PEB and EES high-risk subgroups (Table 4).
Table 4

Subgroup analysis of 12-month LLL

 

Seal-wing PEB

Iopromide-coated PEB

EES

Seal-wing vs. iopromide- PEB

Seal-wing PEB vs. EES

Diabetes mellitus

pa

Patients/lesions, n

18/19

16/16

15/16

0.024

0.450

Late lumen loss, mm

Mean

0.64

0.12

0.48

SD

0.63

0.33

0.86

Median

0.33

0.06

0.12

ISR length >10 mm

Patients/lesions, n

36/41

42/44

44/47

0.0006

1.000

Late lumen loss, mm

Mean

0.53

0.16

0.53

SD

0.57

0.50

0.67

Median

0.37

0.05

0.26

Vessel diameter < 3 mm

Patients/lesions, n

49/53

49/54

47/52

<0.0001

0.564

Late lumen loss, mm

Mean

0.53

0.12

0.42

SD

0.60

0.48

0.63

Median

0.37

0.05

0.16

aMann–Whitney U test

Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of various risk factors on the incidence of repeated binary restenosis after seal-wing PEB treatment of ISR, with correlations to each individual parameter (Table 5). Diabetes mellitus was found to be important predictor of repeated binary restenosis (unadjusted OR: 3.018; 95%CI: 1.117–8.156; p = 0.029). With adjustment for other confounding risk factors, patients with lesion length > 10 mm had significantly higher chances of repeated binary restenosis occurence (adjusted OR: 3.375; 95%CI: 1.011–11.270; p = 0.048).
Table 5

Logistic (separately for each parametr) and multivariate logistic regression analysis (the stepwise forward method) for the seal-wing PEB group

Logistic regression analysis

 

p

Unadjusted OR

95% CI

Diabetes mellitus (1 = yes, 0 = no)

0.029

3.018

1.117–8.156

Type B2/C lesion (1 = yes, 0 = no)

0.172

2.200

0.709–6.825

Vessel diameter < 3 mm (1 = yes,0 = no)

0.611

1.354

0.422–4.348

ISR length >  10 mm (1 = yes, 0 = no)

0.245

1.778

0.673–4.694

Multivariate logistic regression analysis

 

p

adjusted OR

95% CI

ISR length > 10 mm (1 = yes, 0 = no)

0.048

3.375

1.011–11.270

Discussion

Paclitaxel is an effective antiproliferative agent in cases of DEB. This drug is highly lipophilic and rapidly penetrates into the tissues, with the utilized concentrations stabilizing at 3 μg/mm [12]. The main factor influencing the PEB efficacy is the method used to bind paclitaxel to the balloon catheter surface. In the original concept described by Scheller et al., paclitaxel was bound via the hydrophilic contrast agent iopromide (Paccocath®), which increased its solubility and vascular wall penetration [12].

Preclinical studies show a significantly lower LLL, and reduced neointima maximum thickness and area (p values: 0.001, 0.002, and ˂0.001, respectively), with iopromide-coated PEB (Paccocath®) compared to with uncoated PEB (DIOR®) [3].

The efficacy of BMS-ISR treatment using iopromide-coated PEB has been demonstrated in comparison with POBA or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) [13, 14].

In the RIBS V trial, patients with BMS-ISR were treated with iopromide-coated PEB or EES. The patients treated with EES showed significantly higher 9-month MLD (p < 0.001) and lower %DS (p < 0.001). However, these treatment groups did not significantly differ in LLL (P = 0.14), incidence of binary restenosis (p = 0.22),12-month MACE (p = 0.6), or TVR (p = 0.22) [15].

Contrary to the RIBS V, in our TIS study the use of iopromide-coated PEB for treatment for BMS-ISR was associated with significantly reduced 12-month LLL compared to implantation of second-generation EES (p = 0.0004). However, between-group differences in the incidence of repeated binary restenosis (p = 0.078) and 12-month MACE (p = 0.213) were non-significant [3].

Several studies comparing PEBs with different coating were published. Sub-analysis of the SCAAR registry revealed that iopromide-coated PEB (SeQuent®Please; paclitaxel 3 μg/mm2) for treatment of ISR lesions was associated with a lower risk of binary restenosis (adjusted HR: 0.48; 95%CI: 0.23–0.98) compared to uncoated PEB (Elutax©; paclitaxel 2 μg/mm2) [16].

Nijhoff et al. found that the treatment of BMS/DES-ISR using urea-coated PEB were associated with a significantly lower 6-month LLL (p = 0.014), higher value of FFR distally (p = 0.029), and a lower percentage volume of intimal hyperplasia (p = 0.006) compared to shellac-coated PEB. No difference in the incidence of repeated binary restenosis (p = 0.16) and only a trend towards lower TLR were observed (p = 0.057) [17].

Our results confirm that iopromide coating influenced the efficacy of PEB in ISR treatment. We demonstrated that patients with BMS-ISR showed significantly higher 12-month LLL, incidence of repeated binary restenosis, 12-month MACE and TVR following treatment with seal-wing PEB compared to iopromide-coated PEB. This unfavorable effect on reducing LLL was also found in high-risk subgroups of patients with diabetes, ISR length >10 mm, and artery diameter < 3 mm.

Within the seal-wing PEB group, post-dilation pressures were significantly lower than those used in the iopromide-coated PEB group (p = 0.009); however, it does not seem to play a mayor role because the early post-procedural angiographic results (MLD, acute gain, and %DS) did not differ between the groups.

Based on the obviously significant inferior angiographic results, we cannot recommend the use of seal-wing PEB instead of iopromide-coated PEB in the treatment of BMS-ISR.

The main reason of different resuls in our PEB arms may be the method of paclitaxel binding to the balloons. The seal-wing technology of paclitaxel aplication directly on the rough balloon sufrace before folding with only hydrophilic lubrication seems not to be as effective as paclitaxel-iopromide coating.

Compared to EES, seal-wing PEB treatment was associated with a significantly lower 12-month MLD, presumably due to poorer early post-procedural results (post-procedural MLD and acute gain), but the groups did not significantly differ in the primary end-point of 12-month LLL.

In the recently published PRODIGY study, long-term (24 month) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after ISR treatment was associated with a significantly lower composite end-point (death, non-fatal MI or cerebrovascular accident: 16.7% vs. 7.3%; p = 0.034) compared to short-term (6 month) DAPT [18, 19]. In our study, duration of DAPT differed according the the treatment regimen (3 month after PEB and 12 month after EES implantation) and it was temporarily interrupted in 2 patients (3,1%) in the seal-wing PEB arm one month after PCI due to minor bleeding and tooth extraction.

The differences in the incidence of 12-month MACE between seal-wing PEB and EES groups did not reach statistical significance, however.

Subanalysis of the PRODIGY study comparing the first and second generation of DES in the treatment of ISR, found a significantly lower 24 month target lesion failure (TLF; death, target vessel myocardial infarction or clinically driven target lesion revascularization) after EES (Xience; Co/Cr metallic platform) compared to PES or ZES implantation (8% vs. 20% and 26%; EES vs. PES: p = 0.05 and EES vs. ZES: p = 0.001, respectively), principally due to the lower occurrence of clinically driven TLR in EES group (5% vs. 13% and 20%; EES vs. PES: p = 0.09 and EES vs. ZES: p = 0.03, respectively) [2022]. We achieved higher rate of MACE (19.12%) and also TVR (16.18%) in EES-treated BMS-ISR group, even in shorter follow-up period (12 month). A possible influence of different metallic platform (Pt/Cr alloy) of used EES should need further investigation.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. In particularly, it was a non-randomized study that compared active treatment groups with control arms from the previous TIS study. Nevertheless, selection bias likely did not play a major role, since the patient cohorts (particularly the seal-wing PEB and iopromide-coated PEB groups), did not differ with respect to main baseline parameters.

Diferences in clinical outcomes between the study arms should be taken with caution, as our study was not powered for clinical endpoints. The results of the logistic regression analysis in different subgroups should also be interpreted with caution.

Conclusions

Treatment of BMS restenosis using seal-wing PEB led to significantly higher 12-month LLL, repeated binary restenosis, 12-month TVR, and MACE compared to treatment with iopromide-coated PEB. However, no significant differences were found in comparison with EES.

Declarations

Funding

This article was supported by Ministry of Health, Czech Republic - conceptual development of research organizations - FNOs/2015.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets supporting the results of this article are available in the LabArchives repository [http://dx.doi.org/10.6070/H4TB14ZX].

Authors’ contributions

LP: study design; PK, OH: literature search; LP, PK: data collection; LP, PK, OH: data analysis; JZ: statistical analysis; LP, OH: data interpretation; All authors: manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from each patient before enrollment in the study. The study protocol complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of University Hospital Ostrava, Czech Republic. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01735825).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospital Ostrava
(2)
Department of Medical Biophysics, Palacky University
(3)
Department of Cardioangiology, St. Anne’s University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University
(4)
International Clinical Research Center, St. Anne’s University Hospital

References

  1. Kim MS, Dean LS. In-Stent Restenosis. Cardiovascular Therapeutic. 2011;29:190–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfonso F, Byrne RA, Rivero F, Kastrati A. Current treatment of in-stent restenosis. JACC. 2014;63:2659–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Speck U, Scheller B, Abramjuk C, Grossmann S, Mahnkopf D, Simon O. Inhibition of restenosis in stented porcine coronary arteries: uptake of paclitaxel from angiographic contrast media. Investig Radiol. 2004;39(3):182–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Pleva L, Kukla P, Kusnierova P, Zapletalova J, Hlinomaz O. Comparison of the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheters and Everolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. The Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis Study Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003316. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003316.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Pocock SJ, Lansky AJ, Mehran R, Popma JJ, Fahy MP, Na Y, et al. Angiogaphic surrogate end points in drug-eluting stent trials. JACC. 2008;51:23–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Vaquerizo B, Aizpurua DA, Cuscullida JC, Peñaranda AS. Update on drug-eluting balloons for percutaneous coronary interventions. EMJ Int Cardiol. 2013;1:80–90.Google Scholar
  7. van Driel A, Ijsselmuiden S, Polad J, Scholte M, Vries A, Weevers A. Interim results of a new paclitaxel-coated DEB in real-world PCI indications. [Abstract].In: Abstracts of EuroPCR 2016, Paris, France, Euro 16A–POS0885. http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/AbstractsEuroPCR2016_issue/abstracts-europcr-2016/. Accessed on October 28, 2016.
  8. Thygesen K, Albert JS, Jafe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. EHJ. 2012;33:2551–67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials. A case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007;115:2344–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ryan TJ, Faxon DP, Gunnar RM, Kennedy JW, King SB, Loop FD, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on the Assesment of diagnostic and therapeutic cardiovascular procedures. Circulation. 1988;78:486–502.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Mehran R, Dangas G, Abizaid AS, Mintz GS, Lansky AJ, Satler LF, et al. Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis classification and implications for long-term outcome. Circulation. 1999;100:1872–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Scheller B, Speck U, Abramjuk C, Bernhardt U, Böhm M, Nickenig G. Paclitaxel balloon coating, a novel method for prevention and therapy of restenosis. Circulation. 2004;110:810–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Scheller B, Hehrlein C, Bocksch W, Rutsch W, Haghi D, Dietz U, et al. Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated ballon catheter. NEJM. 2006;355:2113–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Unverdorben M, Vallbracht C, Cremers B, Heuer H, Hengstenberg C, Maikowski C, et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter versus paclitaxel-coated stent for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. Circulation. 2009;119:2986–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Alfonso F, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, Cárdenas A, del Blanco BG, Seidelberger B, Ińiguez A, et al. A randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent in patients with bare-metal stent in-stent restenosis. JACC. 2014;63:1378–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bondesson P, Lagerqvist B, James SK, Olivecrona GK, Venetsanos D, Harnek J. Comparison of two drug-eluting balloons: a report from the SCAAR registry. EuroInterv. 2012;8:444–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Nijhoff F, Stella PR, Troost MS, Belkacemi A, Nathoe HM, Voskuil M, et al. Comparative assessment of the antirestenotic efficacy of two paclitaxel drug-eluting balloons with different coatings in the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Clin Res Cardiol 2015;11p.doi:10.1007/s00392-015-0934-0.
  18. Campo G, Tebaldi M, Vranckx P, Biscaglia S, Tumscitz C, Ferrari R, et al. Short- Versus Long-Term Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Treated for In-Stent Restenosis A PRODIGY Trial Substudy (Prolonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading Stent-Induced Intimal Hyperplasia). JACC. 2014;63(6):506–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Monti M, Vranckx P, Percoco G, Tumscitz C, et al. Short- Versus Long-Term Duration of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting A Randomized Multicenter Trial. Circulation. 2012;125:2015–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Campo G, Punzetti S, Malagu M, Ferrari R, Valgimigli M. Two-year outcomes after first- or second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with in-stent restenosis. A PRODIGY trial substudy. Int Journal of Cardiol. 2014;173(2):343–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Percoco G, Monti M, Ferrari F, Tumscitz C, et al. Randomized comparison of 6- versus 24-month clopidogrel therapy after balancing anti-intimal hyperplasia stent potency in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale for the PROlonging dual-antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced intimal hyperplasia study (PRODIGY). Am Heart J. 2010;160:804–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Valgimigli M, Tebaldi M, Borghesi M, Vranckx P, Campo G, Tumscitz C, et al. Two-year outcomes after first- or second-generation drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention a pre-specified analysis from the PRODIGY study (PROlonging dual antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced intimal hyperplasia studY). JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(1):20–8.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement