AIMS: Although paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty has been reported to be effective for in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions, the optimal treatment for recurrent ISR lesions caused by PCB failure remains unclear. This study compared clinical and angiographic outcomes after everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation and repeat PCB angioplasty for PCB failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: From November 2008 to October 2011, we performed PCB angioplasty for 599 ISR lesions, of which 93 recurrent ISR lesions underwent EES implantation (53 lesions, 52 patients) or repeat PCB angioplasty (40 lesions, 37 patients). The choice of treatment strategy was decided at the operatorÕs discretion. Angiographic outcomes were evaluated by follow-up angiography at six to eight months after procedure. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. At follow-up angiography (93.5% of all lesions), minimum lumen diameter was significantly larger and the binary restenosis rate was significantly lower after EES implantation than after repeat PCB angioplasty (2.08±0.79 mm vs. 1.45±0.68 mm, p<0.001; 20.0% vs. 54.1%, p=0.001; respectively), whereas late lumen loss was not different between the two groups (0.49±0.62 mm vs. 0.59±0.74 mm, p=0.47). At two years, the incidences of both target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and clinically driven TLR were significantly lower after EES implantation than after repeat PCB angioplasty (17.9% vs. 57.5%, p=0.001; 5.9% vs. 18.1%, p=0.01; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: EES implantation was more effective for PCB failure in preventing subsequent TLR than repeat PCB angioplasty because of better angiographic results.
AIMS: Although paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty has been reported to be effective for in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions, the optimal treatment for recurrent ISR lesions caused by PCB failure remains unclear. This study compared clinical and angiographic outcomes after everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation and repeat PCB angioplasty for PCB failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: From November 2008 to October 2011, we performed PCB angioplasty for 599 ISR lesions, of which 93 recurrent ISR lesions underwent EES implantation (53 lesions, 52 patients) or repeat PCB angioplasty (40 lesions, 37 patients). The choice of treatment strategy was decided at the operatorÕs discretion. Angiographic outcomes were evaluated by follow-up angiography at six to eight months after procedure. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. At follow-up angiography (93.5% of all lesions), minimum lumen diameter was significantly larger and the binary restenosis rate was significantly lower after EES implantation than after repeat PCB angioplasty (2.08±0.79 mm vs. 1.45±0.68 mm, p<0.001; 20.0% vs. 54.1%, p=0.001; respectively), whereas late lumen loss was not different between the two groups (0.49±0.62 mm vs. 0.59±0.74 mm, p=0.47). At two years, the incidences of both target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and clinically driven TLR were significantly lower after EES implantation than after repeat PCB angioplasty (17.9% vs. 57.5%, p=0.001; 5.9% vs. 18.1%, p=0.01; respectively). CONCLUSIONS:EES implantation was more effective for PCB failure in preventing subsequent TLR than repeat PCB angioplasty because of better angiographic results.