Simone Fezzi, Aurora Trevisanello, Dario Buccheri, Marco Borgi, Pedro Silva Orrego, Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai, Bernardo Cortese
{"title":"小冠状动脉药物包被球的生理性能。","authors":"Simone Fezzi, Aurora Trevisanello, Dario Buccheri, Marco Borgi, Pedro Silva Orrego, Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai, Bernardo Cortese","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are emerging as an alternative to permanent implants for managing de novo coronary artery disease, particularly in small vessels (SVD). This sub-analysis of the PICCOLETO II study aimed to compare the performance of DCB and DES in terms of Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR) changes between baseline, post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and follow-up.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients with a clinical indication for PCI were assigned to receive either Xience DES or Elutax SV/Emperor DCB. Coronary angiograms were blindly analyzed by an independent Core Laboratory (Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca, University of Ferrara, Italy).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among 232 patients, 59 were included in this analysis. Pre-PCI μFR was comparable between groups (0.65 ± 0.29 vs. 0.58 ± 0.25; <i>p</i> = 0.20). Post-PCI, the DCB group had a lower acute functional gain compared to DES (+0.21 vs. +0.31; <i>p</i> = 0.064), with lower μFR values (0.86 ± 0.36 vs. 0.89 ± 0.3; <i>p</i> = 0.074). At 6-month follow-up, μFR values were similar between groups (0.84 ± 0.29 vs. 0.84 ± 0.31, <i>p</i> = 0.93), with a comparable late functional loss (−0.02 vs. −0.05; <i>p</i> = 0.93). Angiographic late lumen loss was significantly lower in the DCB group (−0.03 vs. +0.29 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.027).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>DCB-based PCI showed a trend toward less favorable immediate post-PCI functional result but a comparable performance at follow-up, suggesting its potential in treating de novo SVD.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":"105 3","pages":"643-649"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physiological Performance of Drug-Coated Balloons in Small Coronary Arteries PICCOLETO II μFR\",\"authors\":\"Simone Fezzi, Aurora Trevisanello, Dario Buccheri, Marco Borgi, Pedro Silva Orrego, Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai, Bernardo Cortese\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ccd.31376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are emerging as an alternative to permanent implants for managing de novo coronary artery disease, particularly in small vessels (SVD). This sub-analysis of the PICCOLETO II study aimed to compare the performance of DCB and DES in terms of Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR) changes between baseline, post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and follow-up.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients with a clinical indication for PCI were assigned to receive either Xience DES or Elutax SV/Emperor DCB. Coronary angiograms were blindly analyzed by an independent Core Laboratory (Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca, University of Ferrara, Italy).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Among 232 patients, 59 were included in this analysis. Pre-PCI μFR was comparable between groups (0.65 ± 0.29 vs. 0.58 ± 0.25; <i>p</i> = 0.20). Post-PCI, the DCB group had a lower acute functional gain compared to DES (+0.21 vs. +0.31; <i>p</i> = 0.064), with lower μFR values (0.86 ± 0.36 vs. 0.89 ± 0.3; <i>p</i> = 0.074). At 6-month follow-up, μFR values were similar between groups (0.84 ± 0.29 vs. 0.84 ± 0.31, <i>p</i> = 0.93), with a comparable late functional loss (−0.02 vs. −0.05; <i>p</i> = 0.93). Angiographic late lumen loss was significantly lower in the DCB group (−0.03 vs. +0.29 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.027).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>DCB-based PCI showed a trend toward less favorable immediate post-PCI functional result but a comparable performance at follow-up, suggesting its potential in treating de novo SVD.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"volume\":\"105 3\",\"pages\":\"643-649\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-24\",\"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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ccd.31376\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ccd.31376","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
摘要
背景:药物包被球囊(DCB)正在成为治疗新发冠状动脉疾病,特别是小血管(SVD)的永久性植入物的替代方案。这项PICCOLETO II研究的亚分析旨在比较DCB和DES在基线、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后和随访期间基于默里定律的定量血流比(μFR)变化方面的表现。方法:有PCI临床指征的患者被分配接受Xience DES或Elutax SV/Emperor DCB。冠状动脉造影由独立的核心实验室(意大利费拉拉大学Ricerca的Consorzio Futuro)进行盲目分析。结果:232例患者中,59例纳入分析。两组间pci术前μFR具有可比性(0.65±0.29 vs 0.58±0.25;p = 0.20)。pci后,与DES相比,DCB组的急性功能增益较低(+0.21 vs +0.31;p = 0.064),较低的μFR值(0.86±0.36和0.89±0.3;p = 0.074)。随访6个月时,两组间μFR值相似(0.84±0.29 vs 0.84±0.31,p = 0.93),晚期功能丧失相似(-0.02 vs -0.05;p = 0.93)。血管造影晚期管腔损失在DCB组显著降低(-0.03 vs +0.29 mm;p = 0.027)。结论:基于dcb的PCI显示出PCI术后即时功能结果较差的趋势,但在随访中表现相当,表明其治疗新发SVD的潜力。
Physiological Performance of Drug-Coated Balloons in Small Coronary Arteries PICCOLETO II μFR
Background
Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are emerging as an alternative to permanent implants for managing de novo coronary artery disease, particularly in small vessels (SVD). This sub-analysis of the PICCOLETO II study aimed to compare the performance of DCB and DES in terms of Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR) changes between baseline, post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and follow-up.
Methods
Patients with a clinical indication for PCI were assigned to receive either Xience DES or Elutax SV/Emperor DCB. Coronary angiograms were blindly analyzed by an independent Core Laboratory (Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca, University of Ferrara, Italy).
Results
Among 232 patients, 59 were included in this analysis. Pre-PCI μFR was comparable between groups (0.65 ± 0.29 vs. 0.58 ± 0.25; p = 0.20). Post-PCI, the DCB group had a lower acute functional gain compared to DES (+0.21 vs. +0.31; p = 0.064), with lower μFR values (0.86 ± 0.36 vs. 0.89 ± 0.3; p = 0.074). At 6-month follow-up, μFR values were similar between groups (0.84 ± 0.29 vs. 0.84 ± 0.31, p = 0.93), with a comparable late functional loss (−0.02 vs. −0.05; p = 0.93). Angiographic late lumen loss was significantly lower in the DCB group (−0.03 vs. +0.29 mm; p = 0.027).
Conclusions
DCB-based PCI showed a trend toward less favorable immediate post-PCI functional result but a comparable performance at follow-up, suggesting its potential in treating de novo SVD.
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.