Ludovic Meunier1, Matthieu Godin2, Géraud Souteyrand3, Benoît Mottin1, Yann Valy1, Vincent Lordet1, Christian Benoit1, Ronan Bakdi1, Virginie Laurençon4, Philippe Genereux5,6, Matthias Waliszewski7,8, Caroline Allix-Béguec9. 1. Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier La Rochelle, La Rochelle, France. 2. Cardiology Department, Clinique St-Hilaire, Rouen, France. 3. Département de Cardiologie, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, ISIT, CaVITI, CNRS (UMR-6284), Université d'Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 4. Clinical Trials Unit, Centre Hospitalier La Rochelle, La Rochelle, France. 5. Clinical Trials Center, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA. 6. Morristown Medical Center, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown, NJ, USA. 7. Medical Scientific Affairs, B.Braun Melsungen AG, Berlin, Germany. 8. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow, Berlin, Germany. 9. Clinical Trials Unit, Centre Hospitalier La Rochelle, La Rochelle, France. caroline.allix-beguec@ght-atlantique17.fr.
Abstract
AIM: We evaluated a decision algorithm for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) based on a no-stent strategy, corresponding to a combination of scoring balloon angioplasty (SCBA) and drug-coated balloon (DCB), as a first line approach. Stents were used only in unstable patients, or in case of mandatory bailout stenting (BO-stent). METHODS: From April 2019 to March 2020, 984 consecutive patients, including 1922 lesions, underwent PCI. The 12-month primary end-point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and target lesion revascularization. Patients were classified into conventional or no-stent strategy groups according to the PCI strategy. In the no-stent strategy group, they were further classified into BO-stent or DCB-only groups. Their metal index was calculated by stent length divided by the total lesion length. RESULTS: The no-stent strategy was applied in 85% of the patients, and it was successful for 65% of them. MACE occurred in 7.1% of the study population, including 4.2% of all-cause death. Target lesion revascularization was required in 1.4%, 3.6%, and 1.5% of patients in the conventional DES, BO-stent, and DCB-only groups, respectively. MACE occurred more often in the elderly and in those treated with at least one stent (metal index greater than 0). CONCLUSIONS: The no-stent strategy, i.e., revascularization of coronary lesions by SCBA followed by DCB and with DES bailout stenting, was effective and safe at 1 year. This PCI approach was applicable on a daily practice in our cath lab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03893396, first posted on March 28, 2019). Feasibility, safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions following a decision tree proposing a no-stent strategy in stable patients with coronary artery disease. DES: drug eluting stent; SCBA: scoring balloon angioplasty; BO-stent: at least one stent; DCB: drug coated balloon; BMS: bare metal stent; Bailout (dash lines); MACE: major adverse cardiac event.
AIM: We evaluated a decision algorithm for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) based on a no-stent strategy, corresponding to a combination of scoring balloon angioplasty (SCBA) and drug-coated balloon (DCB), as a first line approach. Stents were used only in unstable patients, or in case of mandatory bailout stenting (BO-stent). METHODS: From April 2019 to March 2020, 984 consecutive patients, including 1922 lesions, underwent PCI. The 12-month primary end-point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and target lesion revascularization. Patients were classified into conventional or no-stent strategy groups according to the PCI strategy. In the no-stent strategy group, they were further classified into BO-stent or DCB-only groups. Their metal index was calculated by stent length divided by the total lesion length. RESULTS: The no-stent strategy was applied in 85% of the patients, and it was successful for 65% of them. MACE occurred in 7.1% of the study population, including 4.2% of all-cause death. Target lesion revascularization was required in 1.4%, 3.6%, and 1.5% of patients in the conventional DES, BO-stent, and DCB-only groups, respectively. MACE occurred more often in the elderly and in those treated with at least one stent (metal index greater than 0). CONCLUSIONS: The no-stent strategy, i.e., revascularization of coronary lesions by SCBA followed by DCB and with DES bailout stenting, was effective and safe at 1 year. This PCI approach was applicable on a daily practice in our cath lab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03893396, first posted on March 28, 2019). Feasibility, safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions following a decision tree proposing a no-stent strategy in stable patients with coronary artery disease. DES: drug eluting stent; SCBA: scoring balloon angioplasty; BO-stent: at least one stent; DCB: drug coated balloon; BMS: bare metal stent; Bailout (dash lines); MACE: major adverse cardiac event.
Authors: Raban V Jeger; Simon Eccleshall; Wan Azman Wan Ahmad; Junbo Ge; Tudor C Poerner; Eun-Seok Shin; Fernando Alfonso; Azeem Latib; Paul J Ong; Tuomas T Rissanen; Jorge Saucedo; Bruno Scheller; Franz X Kleber Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Raban V Jeger; Ahmed Farah; Marc-Alexander Ohlow; Norman Mangner; Sven Möbius-Winkler; Gregor Leibundgut; Daniel Weilenmann; Jochen Wöhrle; Stefan Richter; Matthias Schreiber; Felix Mahfoud; Axel Linke; Frank-Peter Stephan; Christian Mueller; Peter Rickenbacher; Michael Coslovsky; Nicole Gilgen; Stefan Osswald; Christoph Kaiser; Bruno Scheller Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephan Windecker; Philippe Kolh; Fernando Alfonso; Jean-Philippe Collet; Jochen Cremer; Volkmar Falk; Gerasimos Filippatos; Christian Hamm; Stuart J Head; Peter Jüni; A Pieter Kappetein; Adnan Kastrati; Juhani Knuuti; Ulf Landmesser; Günther Laufer; Franz-Josef Neumann; Dimitrios J Richter; Patrick Schauerte; Miguel Sousa Uva; Giulio G Stefanini; David Paul Taggart; Lucia Torracca; Marco Valgimigli; William Wijns; Adam Witkowski Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Tuomas T Rissanen; Sanna Uskela; Jaakko Eränen; Pirjo Mäntylä; Annika Olli; Hannu Romppanen; Antti Siljander; Mikko Pietilä; Mikko J Minkkinen; Jerry Tervo; Jussi M Kärkkäinen Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bruno Scheller; Marc-Alexander Ohlow; Sebastian Ewen; Stephan Kische; Tanja K Rudolph; Yvonne P Clever; Andreas Wagner; Stefan Richter; Mohammad El-Garhy; Michael Böhm; Ralf Degenhardt; Felix Mahfoud; Bernward Lauer Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Eric Maupas; Janusz Lipiecki; Raphy Levy; Benjamin Faurie; Bernard Karsenty; Marc Eric Moulichon; François Brunelle; Luc Maillard; Fabien de Poli; Thierry Lefèvre Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 2.692