Blog
About

2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis in High-Risk Patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In-stent restenosis (ISR) is a major cause of failure of percutaneous coronary intervention. The efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in patients with high-risk clinical features are largely unknown. We enrolled 82 consecutive patients at high risk of bleeding with angiographically significant (diameter stenosis ≥ 50%) ISR of bare metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES), treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon. All patients presented at least one of the following criteria: high bleeding risk, neoplasm, chronic inflammatory disease, and need for noncardiac surgery. Dual antiplatelet therapy was indicated for 4 weeks after the procedure. At angiographic follow-up, overall late lumen loss was 0.24 ± 0.32 mm, with no significant difference between BMS-ISR and DES-ISR (0.25 ± 0.35 vs 0.22 ± 0.30 mm, p = 0.714). The Kaplan-Meier estimate for major adverse clinical events-free survival at 3 years was 81.4% (82.3% in BMS-ISR vs 79.4% in DES-ISR, log-rank p = 0.866). No stent thrombosis has been recorded. In conclusion, the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon seems to be associated with favorable outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for BMS-ISR or DES-ISR in patients with high-risk clinical features and could be considered as a reasonable option in the presence of systemic co-morbidities and contraindications to long-term dual antiplatelet therapy.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The American Journal of Cardiology
          The American Journal of Cardiology
          Elsevier BV
          00029149
          December 2015
          December 2015
          : 116
          : 11
          : 1690-1694
          Article
          10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.08.041
          26428021
          © 2015

          Comments

          Comment on this article