Ae-Young Her, Tae Hyun Kim, Eun-Seok Shin, Sunwon Kim, Bitna Kim, Yong Hoon Kim, Ki Hong Choi, Yun-Kyeong Cho, Hyun-Jong Lee, Young Bin Song, Chang-Wook Nam, Hyeon-Cheol Gwon
{"title":"Drug-Coated Balloon-Based Treatment of Left Main True Bifurcation Lesion.","authors":"Ae-Young Her, Tae Hyun Kim, Eun-Seok Shin, Sunwon Kim, Bitna Kim, Yong Hoon Kim, Ki Hong Choi, Yun-Kyeong Cho, Hyun-Jong Lee, Young Bin Song, Chang-Wook Nam, Hyeon-Cheol Gwon","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a paucity of data regarding drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in the context of left main (LM) true bifurcation lesions.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DCB-based treatment for unprotected LM true bifurcation lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 39 patients with LM true bifurcation lesion (Medina: 1,1,1/0,1,1/1,0,1) who were successfully treated with DCB alone or in combination with drug-eluting stent (DES) were retrospectively enrolled into the DCB-based group. They were compared with 39 propensity-matched patients who were treated with second-generation DES from the COBIS III registry (n = 2648). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent or target lesion thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization at the 2-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups, except for the prevalence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions (41.0% in DCB-based group vs. 17.9% in DES-only group, p = 0.047). In the DCB-based group, 59.0% of the patients (n = 23) underwent DCB-only treatment. There were no cases of abrupt vessel closure requiring treatment following DCB application. The MACE were comparable between both groups (12.8% in DCB-based group vs. 17.9% in DES-only group, p = 0.861) after 2 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with unprotected LM true bifurcation lesions, DCB-based treatment demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes at the 2-year follow-up when compared to DES-only treatment. DCB-based treatment could be considered a safe and effective alternative to DES for carefully selected patients who have achieved satisfactory predilation results (Impact of DCB Treatment in De Novo Coronary Lesion; NCT04619277).</p>","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31416","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is a paucity of data regarding drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in the context of left main (LM) true bifurcation lesions.
Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DCB-based treatment for unprotected LM true bifurcation lesions.
Methods: A total of 39 patients with LM true bifurcation lesion (Medina: 1,1,1/0,1,1/1,0,1) who were successfully treated with DCB alone or in combination with drug-eluting stent (DES) were retrospectively enrolled into the DCB-based group. They were compared with 39 propensity-matched patients who were treated with second-generation DES from the COBIS III registry (n = 2648). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent or target lesion thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization at the 2-year follow-up.
Results: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups, except for the prevalence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions (41.0% in DCB-based group vs. 17.9% in DES-only group, p = 0.047). In the DCB-based group, 59.0% of the patients (n = 23) underwent DCB-only treatment. There were no cases of abrupt vessel closure requiring treatment following DCB application. The MACE were comparable between both groups (12.8% in DCB-based group vs. 17.9% in DES-only group, p = 0.861) after 2 years.
Conclusions: In patients with unprotected LM true bifurcation lesions, DCB-based treatment demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes at the 2-year follow-up when compared to DES-only treatment. DCB-based treatment could be considered a safe and effective alternative to DES for carefully selected patients who have achieved satisfactory predilation results (Impact of DCB Treatment in De Novo Coronary Lesion; NCT04619277).
期刊介绍:
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.