PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Data on drug-coated balloons (DCB) for de novo coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) are limited. We aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of substitution of drug-eluting stents (DES) by DCB.
UNASSIGNED: We compared the outcomes of less DES strategy (DCB alone or combined with DES) and DES-only strategy in treating de novo coronary CTO in this prospective, observational, multicenter study. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death during 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were late lumen loss (LLL) and restenosis until 1-year after operation.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 591 eligible patients consecutively enrolled between January 2015 and December 2019, 281 (290 lesions) were treated with DCB (DCB-only or combined with DES) and 310 (319 lesions) with DES only. In the DCB group, 147 (50.7%) lesions were treated using DCB-only, and the bailout stenting rate was relatively low (3.1%). The average stent length per lesion in the DCB group was significantly shorter compared with the DES-only group (21.5 ± 25.5 mm vs. 54.5 ± 26.0 mm, p < 0.001). A total of 112 patients in the DCB group and 71 patients in the DES-only group (38.6% vs. 22.3%, p < 0.001) completed angiographic follow-up until 1-year, and LLL was much less in the DCB group (-0.08 ± 0.65 mm vs. 0.35 ± 0.62 mm, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in restenosis occurrence between the two groups (20.5% vs. 19.7%, p > 0.999). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of MACE at 3-year (11.8% vs. 12.0%, log-rank p = 0.688) was similar between the groups.
UNASSIGNED: Percutaneous coronary intervention with DCB is a potential \"stent-less\" therapy for de novo CTO lesions with satisfactory long-term clinical results compared to the DES-only approach.
UNASSIGNED: We compared the outcomes of less DES strategy (DCB alone or combined with DES) and DES-only strategy in treating de novo coronary CTO in this prospective, observational, multicenter study. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death during 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were late lumen loss (LLL) and restenosis until 1-year after operation.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 591 eligible patients consecutively enrolled between January 2015 and December 2019, 281 (290 lesions) were treated with DCB (DCB-only or combined with DES) and 310 (319 lesions) with DES only. In the DCB group, 147 (50.7%) lesions were treated using DCB-only, and the bailout stenting rate was relatively low (3.1%). The average stent length per lesion in the DCB group was significantly shorter compared with the DES-only group (21.5 ± 25.5 mm vs. 54.5 ± 26.0 mm, p < 0.001). A total of 112 patients in the DCB group and 71 patients in the DES-only group (38.6% vs. 22.3%, p < 0.001) completed angiographic follow-up until 1-year, and LLL was much less in the DCB group (-0.08 ± 0.65 mm vs. 0.35 ± 0.62 mm, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in restenosis occurrence between the two groups (20.5% vs. 19.7%, p > 0.999). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of MACE at 3-year (11.8% vs. 12.0%, log-rank p = 0.688) was similar between the groups.
UNASSIGNED: Percutaneous coronary intervention with DCB is a potential \"stent-less\" therapy for de novo CTO lesions with satisfactory long-term clinical results compared to the DES-only approach.
摘要：
未经评估：新冠状动脉慢性完全闭塞（CTO）的药物涂层球囊（DCB）数据有限。我们旨在研究DCB替代药物洗脱支架（DES）的长期结果。
UNASSIGNED：我们比较了较少DES策略（单独使用DCB或与DES联合使用）和仅使用DES策略治疗新生冠状动脉CTO的结果，观察,多中心研究。主要终点是主要不良心血管事件（MACE），靶血管血运重建,心肌梗塞,3年随访期间死亡。次要终点是术后1年的晚期管腔丢失（LLL）和再狭窄。
UNASSIGNED：在2015年1月至2019年12月期间连续纳入的591例符合条件的患者中，281例（290个病变）接受了DCB（仅DCB或与DES联合）治疗，310例（319个病变）仅接受DES治疗。在DCB组中，147（50.7%）病变仅使用DCB治疗，救助支架置入率相对较低(3.1%)。与仅DES组相比，DCB组每个病变的平均支架长度明显缩短（21.5±25.5mmvs.54.5±26.0mm,p<0.001)。DCB组共112例患者和仅DES组71例患者（38.6％vs.22.3%,p<0.001)完成血管造影随访至1年，DCB组的LLL要小得多（-0.08±0.65mmvs.0.35±0.62mm,p<0.001)。两组之间的再狭窄发生率没有显着差异（20.5％vs.19.7%,p>0.999)。Kaplan-Meier估计3年期MACE（11.8%与12.0%,log-rankp=0.688)组间相似。
UNASSIGNED：经皮冠状动脉介入治疗DCB是一种潜在的“无支架”疗法，与单纯DES方法相比，可获得满意的长期临床结果。
UNASSIGNED：我们比较了较少DES策略（单独使用DCB或与DES联合使用）和仅使用DES策略治疗新生冠状动脉CTO的结果，观察,多中心研究。主要终点是主要不良心血管事件（MACE），靶血管血运重建,心肌梗塞,3年随访期间死亡。次要终点是术后1年的晚期管腔丢失（LLL）和再狭窄。
UNASSIGNED：在2015年1月至2019年12月期间连续纳入的591例符合条件的患者中，281例（290个病变）接受了DCB（仅DCB或与DES联合）治疗，310例（319个病变）仅接受DES治疗。在DCB组中，147（50.7%）病变仅使用DCB治疗，救助支架置入率相对较低(3.1%)。与仅DES组相比，DCB组每个病变的平均支架长度明显缩短（21.5±25.5mmvs.54.5±26.0mm,p<0.001)。DCB组共112例患者和仅DES组71例患者（38.6％vs.22.3%,p<0.001)完成血管造影随访至1年，DCB组的LLL要小得多（-0.08±0.65mmvs.0.35±0.62mm,p<0.001)。两组之间的再狭窄发生率没有显着差异（20.5％vs.19.7%,p>0.999)。Kaplan-Meier估计3年期MACE（11.8%与12.0%,log-rankp=0.688)组间相似。
UNASSIGNED：经皮冠状动脉介入治疗DCB是一种潜在的“无支架”疗法，与单纯DES方法相比，可获得满意的长期临床结果。
