OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the role of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) alone or in combination with drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of diffuse de novo coronary artery disease (CAD) (>25 mm). BACKGROUND: The use of DEB in diffuse CAD, either alone or in combination with DES, offers an alternative to stenting alone. Data regarding DEB in this context are limited. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all patients treated with DEB for diffuse CAD between June 2009 and October 2012. Endpoints analyzed were major adverse cardiac events, defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), as well as TVR and target lesion revascularization separately. Results were compared with those obtained from a cohort of patients with similar characteristics treated with DES alone. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients (93 lesions) were treated with DEB ± DES, and 93 patients with DES alone (93 lesions). A high proportion of patients were diabetic (46.4% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.77). Of the DEB-treated lesions, 56.0% were treated with DEB alone, 7.4% with DEB and DES as bail out, and 36.6% with DES and DEB as part of a hybrid approach for very long disease. Outcome rates with DEB ± DES were comparable to those with DES alone at 2-year follow-up (major adverse cardiac events = 20.8% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.74; TVR = 14.8% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.44; target lesion revascularization = 9.6% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: DEB may have a role in the treatment of diffuse de novo CAD, either alone in smaller vessels or in combination with DES in very long disease.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the role of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) alone or in combination with drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of diffuse de novo coronary artery disease (CAD) (>25 mm). BACKGROUND: The use of DEB in diffuse CAD, either alone or in combination with DES, offers an alternative to stenting alone. Data regarding DEB in this context are limited. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all patients treated with DEB for diffuse CAD between June 2009 and October 2012. Endpoints analyzed were major adverse cardiac events, defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), as well as TVR and target lesion revascularization separately. Results were compared with those obtained from a cohort of patients with similar characteristics treated with DES alone. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients (93 lesions) were treated with DEB ± DES, and 93 patients with DES alone (93 lesions). A high proportion of patients were diabetic (46.4% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.77). Of the DEB-treated lesions, 56.0% were treated with DEB alone, 7.4% with DEB and DES as bail out, and 36.6% with DES and DEB as part of a hybrid approach for very long disease. Outcome rates with DEB ± DES were comparable to those with DES alone at 2-year follow-up (major adverse cardiac events = 20.8% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.74; TVR = 14.8% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.44; target lesion revascularization = 9.6% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: DEB may have a role in the treatment of diffuse de novo CAD, either alone in smaller vessels or in combination with DES in very long disease.