Why the study?
Although DCBs are established for de-novo small coronary artery lesions, the impact of DCB treatment according to reference vessel diameter remains poorly defined.
Does drug-coated balloon treatment yield similar angiographic and clinical outcomes in nonsmall de-novo coronary artery disease compared to small vessel disease?
Does drug-coated balloon treatment yield similar angiographic and clinical outcomes in nonsmall de-novo coronary artery disease compared to small vessel disease?
Drug-coated balloon treatment for de-novo coronary lesions demonstrates comparable angiographic and long-term clinical outcomes regardless of whether the reference vessel diameter is >2.5 mm or ≤2.5 mm.
OBJECTIVES: Although drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are established for de-novo lesions in small coronary arteries, the impact of DCB treatment according to the reference vessel diameter (RVD) remains poorly defined. This study aimed to evaluate the angiographic and long-term clinical outcomes of DCB treatment for de-novo coronary lesions according to RVD. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 227 patients were retrospectively enrolled and stratified according to an RVD >2.5 mm [nonsmall vessel disease (NSVD) group, n = 100] and ≤2.5 mm [small vessel disease (SVD) group, n = 127]. The primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL) at a 6-month follow-up, and the secondary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and target vessel thrombosis). The LLL among the 206 patients (90.8%) returning for scheduled angiography at 6 month was similar (NSVD, 0.03 ± 0.22 mm vs. SVD, 0.06 ± 0.25 mm; P = 0.384). TVF was also comparable in both groups at a median follow-up of 3.4 years (NSVD, 7.0 vs. SVD, 7.9 %; P = 0.596). At baseline, there were numerically more dissections in the SVD group compared to the NSVD group (47.2 vs. 35.0 %; P = 0.064); however, most of these had disappeared in both groups at a 6-month follow-up. In a multivariable analysis, the presence of dissection was not associated with LLL or TVF in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy of DCB treatment for de-novo coronary lesions, in terms of LLL and TVF, was unrelated to RVD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Her et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: