AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy between paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for the treatment of DES restenosis in complex situations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data of patients who received revascularisation for DES restenosis between 2004 and 2011 were collected. A total of 683 patients with 777 lesions were analysed in this study (306 lesions treated by PCB, 471 lesions by DES). The use of PCB or DES was at the discretion of the operator. Angiographic outcomes at six to eight months and clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up were compared between groups. The primary outcome was binary restenosis. Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment suggested that there were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to binary restenosis, target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events. As for the angiographic endpoints, subgroup analysis was performed for several parameters. There was a significant trend favouring PCB with respect to binary restenosis and TLR in non-focal type lesions and bifurcation lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Angiographic and clinical outcomes in the PCB group were similar to those in the repeat DES group. PCB seemed to offer more favourable results in non-focal type lesions and bifurcation lesions.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy between paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for the treatment of DES restenosis in complex situations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data of patients who received revascularisation for DES restenosis between 2004 and 2011 were collected. A total of 683 patients with 777 lesions were analysed in this study (306 lesions treated by PCB, 471 lesions by DES). The use of PCB or DES was at the discretion of the operator. Angiographic outcomes at six to eight months and clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up were compared between groups. The primary outcome was binary restenosis. Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment suggested that there were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to binary restenosis, target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events. As for the angiographic endpoints, subgroup analysis was performed for several parameters. There was a significant trend favouring PCB with respect to binary restenosis and TLR in non-focal type lesions and bifurcation lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Angiographic and clinical outcomes in the PCB group were similar to those in the repeat DES group. PCB seemed to offer more favourable results in non-focal type lesions and bifurcation lesions.