Peripheral Artery Disease Intervention: Drug-Coated Balloon vs Drug-Eluting Stent, A Long-Term Comparison

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of interventional cardiology Pub Date : 2022-08-27 DOI:10.1155/2022/5175607
Nathan Marzlin, M. Fuad Jan, Louie Kostopoulos, Ana Cristina Perez Moreno, Tanvir Bajwa, Suhail Q. Allaqaband
{"title":"Peripheral Artery Disease Intervention: Drug-Coated Balloon vs Drug-Eluting Stent, A Long-Term Comparison","authors":"Nathan Marzlin,&nbsp;M. Fuad Jan,&nbsp;Louie Kostopoulos,&nbsp;Ana Cristina Perez Moreno,&nbsp;Tanvir Bajwa,&nbsp;Suhail Q. Allaqaband","doi":"10.1155/2022/5175607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Objectives</i>. The aim of the study is to evaluate current trends and long-term durability of both drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD). <i>Background</i>. PAD affects more than 200 million people worldwide. Endovascular treatment of critical PAD has advanced in recent years. DES and DCB have demonstrated superiority compared to balloon angioplasty or bare metal stenting. The current literature lacks any long-term, direct comparison. <i>Methods</i>. A retrospective analysis was completed on patients who had femoral-popliteal interventions from June 2014 to June 2018 with either DCB or DES. Patient medical data and lesion characteristics were retrieved using the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Outcomes were analyzed through December 2019. Primary endpoint of time to clinical event-driven target lesion reintervention (TLR) and secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality were examined. <i>Results</i>. Four hundred eighty-three patients with a total of 563 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Three hundred fifty-nine DCB and 204 DES were performed. Of the DCBs, 132 required bailout stenting at the time of procedure. The mean time for TLR in the DES group was 1,277 days (SD 546), compared to 904 days (SD 330.1) for DCB. For patients requiring TLR, DES remained patent significantly longer (373 days longer on average) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). For all-cause mortality there was no significant difference at 50 months between DCB and DES (<i>p</i> = 0.06). <i>Conclusions</i>. In patients who required TLR, DES had a significantly longer length of time to reintervention vs DCB (average 373 days), although no difference in mortality was observed.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiology","volume":"2022 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9440843/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/5175607","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

Objectives. The aim of the study is to evaluate current trends and long-term durability of both drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD). Background. PAD affects more than 200 million people worldwide. Endovascular treatment of critical PAD has advanced in recent years. DES and DCB have demonstrated superiority compared to balloon angioplasty or bare metal stenting. The current literature lacks any long-term, direct comparison. Methods. A retrospective analysis was completed on patients who had femoral-popliteal interventions from June 2014 to June 2018 with either DCB or DES. Patient medical data and lesion characteristics were retrieved using the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Outcomes were analyzed through December 2019. Primary endpoint of time to clinical event-driven target lesion reintervention (TLR) and secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality were examined. Results. Four hundred eighty-three patients with a total of 563 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Three hundred fifty-nine DCB and 204 DES were performed. Of the DCBs, 132 required bailout stenting at the time of procedure. The mean time for TLR in the DES group was 1,277 days (SD 546), compared to 904 days (SD 330.1) for DCB. For patients requiring TLR, DES remained patent significantly longer (373 days longer on average) (p < 0.001). For all-cause mortality there was no significant difference at 50 months between DCB and DES (p = 0.06). Conclusions. In patients who required TLR, DES had a significantly longer length of time to reintervention vs DCB (average 373 days), although no difference in mortality was observed.

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
外周动脉疾病干预:药物涂层球囊与药物洗脱支架的长期比较。
研究目的本研究旨在评估药物洗脱支架(DES)和药物涂层球囊(DCB)在治疗外周动脉疾病(PAD)方面的当前趋势和长期耐久性:背景:全世界有超过 2 亿人患有 PAD。背景:PAD 影响着全球 2 亿人。近年来,危重 PAD 的血管内治疗取得了进展。与球囊血管成形术或裸金属支架相比,DES 和 DCB 已显示出优越性。目前的文献缺乏长期、直接的比较:对2014年6月至2018年6月期间使用DCB或DES进行股腘动脉介入治疗的患者进行了回顾性分析。使用血管质量倡议数据库检索了患者的医疗数据和病变特征。结果分析截至 2019 年 12 月。研究的主要终点是临床事件驱动的靶病变再介入(TLR)时间,次要终点是全因死亡率:共有 483 名患者接受了 563 次介入治疗,符合纳入标准。共实施了 359 例 DCB 和 204 例 DES。在DCB中,有132例患者在手术时需要保外支架。DES组的TLR平均时间为1277天(SD 546),而DCB组为904天(SD 330.1)。对于需要TLR的患者,DES保持专利的时间明显更长(平均长373天)(p < 0.001)。在50个月的全因死亡率方面,DCB和DES没有明显差异(p = 0.06):结论:在需要TLR的患者中,DES与DCB的再介入时间明显更长(平均373天),但死亡率无差异。
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
Journal of interventional cardiology
Journal of interventional cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Interventional Cardiology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for cardiologists determined to stay current in the diagnosis, investigation, and management of patients with cardiovascular disease and its associated complications. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on new procedures and techniques in all major subject areas in the field, including: Acute coronary syndrome Coronary disease Congenital heart diseases Myocardial infarction Peripheral arterial disease Valvular heart disease Cardiac hemodynamics and physiology Haemostasis and thrombosis
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to “The “L-Sandwich” Strategy for True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial” Complete Revascularization Techniques for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Angiography- and Coronary Physiology-Guided PCI Predictors for Sedation Failure in Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair Procedures Single Center Experience With Impella 5.5 for Escalation and De-Escalation of Cardiogenic Shock Patients Epidemiological Trends, Etiology, and Burden Study of Heart Failure in China, 1990–2019
×
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