Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty of the Side Branch During Provisional Stenting: The Multicenter Randomized DCB-BIF Trial

IF 21.7 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of the American College of Cardiology Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2024.08.067
Xiaofei Gao, Nailiang Tian, Jing Kan, Ping Li, Mian Wang, Imad Sheiban, Filippo Figini, Jianping Deng, Xiang Chen, Teguh Santoso, Eun-Seok Shin, Muhammad Munawar, Shangyu Wen, Zhengzhong Wang, Shaoping Nie, Yue Li, Tan Xu, Bin Wang, Fei Ye, Junjie Zhang, Shao-Liang Chen
{"title":"Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty of the Side Branch During Provisional Stenting: The Multicenter Randomized DCB-BIF Trial","authors":"Xiaofei Gao, Nailiang Tian, Jing Kan, Ping Li, Mian Wang, Imad Sheiban, Filippo Figini, Jianping Deng, Xiang Chen, Teguh Santoso, Eun-Seok Shin, Muhammad Munawar, Shangyu Wen, Zhengzhong Wang, Shaoping Nie, Yue Li, Tan Xu, Bin Wang, Fei Ye, Junjie Zhang, Shao-Liang Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.jacc.2024.08.067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Background</h3>Side branch stenting is often required during provisional stenting, leading to suboptimal results. Drug-coated balloons (DCB) for the compromised side branch have emerged as an attractive strategy. However, the benefit of DCB for coronary bifurcations remains unclear.<h3>Objectives</h3>This study aimed to investigate whether DCB, compared with a noncompliant balloon (NCB), for the pinched side branch improves the outcomes of provisional stenting in patients with simple, true coronary bifurcations.<h3>Methods</h3>In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, patients with true coronary bifurcations who had side branch diameter stenosis of ≥70% after main vessel stenting at 22 centers in China, Indonesia, Italy, and Korea were randomly assigned to either DCB or NCB intervention. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-lesion revascularization at the 1-year follow-up.<h3>Results</h3>Between September 8, 2020, and June 2, 2023, 784 patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing main vessel stenting and having a severely compromised side branch were randomly assigned to the DCB (n = 391) or NCB (n = 393) group. One-year follow-up was completed in all patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 28 patients in the DCB group and 49 patients in the NCB group (Kaplan-Meier rate: 7.2% vs 12.5%; HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35-0.88; <em>P</em> = 0.013), driven by a reduction in myocardial infarction. There were no significant differences between groups in procedural success, crossover to a 2-stent approach, all-cause death, revascularization, or stent thrombosis.<h3>Conclusions</h3>In patients with simple and true coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing provisional stenting, main vessel stenting with a DCB for the compromised side branch resulted in a lower 1-year rate of the composite outcome compared with an NCB intervention for the side branch. The high rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction, which occurred early and did not lead to revascularization, are of unclear clinical significance.","PeriodicalId":17187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Cardiology","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":21.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.08.067","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Side branch stenting is often required during provisional stenting, leading to suboptimal results. Drug-coated balloons (DCB) for the compromised side branch have emerged as an attractive strategy. However, the benefit of DCB for coronary bifurcations remains unclear.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate whether DCB, compared with a noncompliant balloon (NCB), for the pinched side branch improves the outcomes of provisional stenting in patients with simple, true coronary bifurcations.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, patients with true coronary bifurcations who had side branch diameter stenosis of ≥70% after main vessel stenting at 22 centers in China, Indonesia, Italy, and Korea were randomly assigned to either DCB or NCB intervention. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-lesion revascularization at the 1-year follow-up.

Results

Between September 8, 2020, and June 2, 2023, 784 patients with true coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing main vessel stenting and having a severely compromised side branch were randomly assigned to the DCB (n = 391) or NCB (n = 393) group. One-year follow-up was completed in all patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 28 patients in the DCB group and 49 patients in the NCB group (Kaplan-Meier rate: 7.2% vs 12.5%; HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35-0.88; P = 0.013), driven by a reduction in myocardial infarction. There were no significant differences between groups in procedural success, crossover to a 2-stent approach, all-cause death, revascularization, or stent thrombosis.

Conclusions

In patients with simple and true coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing provisional stenting, main vessel stenting with a DCB for the compromised side branch resulted in a lower 1-year rate of the composite outcome compared with an NCB intervention for the side branch. The high rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction, which occurred early and did not lead to revascularization, are of unclear clinical significance.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临时支架植入术中的侧支药物涂层球囊血管成形术:多中心随机 DCB-BIF 试验
背景在临时支架置入术中,往往需要进行侧支支架置入术,导致效果不理想。针对受损侧支的药物涂层球囊(DCB)已成为一种有吸引力的策略。本研究旨在探讨与非顺应性球囊(NCB)相比,针对受挤压侧支的 DCB 是否能改善简单、真实冠状动脉分叉患者的临时支架治疗效果。方法在这项多中心随机对照试验中,中国、印度尼西亚、意大利和韩国的 22 个中心对主血管支架术后侧支直径狭窄≥70% 的真性冠状动脉分叉患者随机分配接受 DCB 或 NCB 介入治疗。结果在2020年9月8日至2023年6月2日期间,784名接受主血管支架术且侧支严重受损的真性冠状动脉分叉病变患者被随机分配到DCB组(n = 391)或NCB组(n = 393)。所有患者均完成了为期一年的随访。主要终点出现在 DCB 组的 28 名患者和 NCB 组的 49 名患者中(Kaplan-Meier 比率:7.2% vs 12.5%;HR:0.56;95% CI:0.35-0.88;P = 0.013),主要原因是心肌梗死发生率降低。结论 在接受临时支架植入术的单纯和真正冠状动脉分叉病变患者中,与对侧枝进行NCB介入相比,对受损侧枝进行主血管支架植入术的1年综合结果发生率更低。围手术期心肌梗死发生率较高,且发生较早,未导致血管再通,其临床意义尚不明确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
42.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
5097
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) publishes peer-reviewed articles highlighting all aspects of cardiovascular disease, including original clinical studies, experimental investigations with clear clinical relevance, state-of-the-art papers and viewpoints. Content Profile: -Original Investigations -JACC State-of-the-Art Reviews -JACC Review Topics of the Week -Guidelines & Clinical Documents -JACC Guideline Comparisons -JACC Scientific Expert Panels -Cardiovascular Medicine & Society -Editorial Comments (accompanying every Original Investigation) -Research Letters -Fellows-in-Training/Early Career Professional Pages -Editor’s Pages from the Editor-in-Chief or other invited thought leaders
期刊最新文献
Excess Mortality and Hospitalizations Associated With Seasonal Influenza in Patients With Heart Failure. Impact of Renal and Liver Function on Clinical Outcomes Following Tricuspid Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair. Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Still Prevents Ruptures: A Secondary Analysis of the VIVA Trial. 2024 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Practical Approaches for Arrhythmia Monitoring After Stroke: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Heart Failure, Reduced Ejection Fraction, and Moderate Aortic Stenosis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1