OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB)-only angioplasty compared to drug-eluting stent (DES), as part of routine clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The recent BASKETSMALL2 trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of DCB angioplasty for de novo small vessel disease. Registry data have also demonstrated that DCB angioplasty is safe; however, most of these studies are limited due to long recruitment time and a small number of patients with DCB compared to DES. Therefore, it is unclear if DCB-only strategy is safe to incorporate in routine elective clinical practice. METHODS: We compared all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular endpoints (MACE), including unplanned target lesion revascularisation (TLR) of all patients treated with DCB or DES for first presentation of stable angina due to de novo coronary artery disease between 1st January 2015 and 15th November 2019. Data were analysed with Cox regression models and cumulative hazard plots. RESULTS: We present 1237 patients; 544 treated with DCB and 693 treated with DES for de novo, mainly large-vessel coronary artery disease. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, only age and frailty remained significant adverse predictors of all-cause mortality. Univariable, cumulative hazard plots showed no difference between DCB and DES for either all-cause mortality or any of the major cardiovascular endpoints, including unplanned TLR. The results remained unchanged following propensity score-matched analysis. CONCLUSION: DCB-only angioplasty, for stable angina and predominantly large vessels, is safe compared to DES as part of routine clinical practice, in terms of all-cause mortality and MACE, including unplanned TLR.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB)-only angioplasty compared to drug-eluting stent (DES), as part of routine clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The recent BASKETSMALL2 trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of DCB angioplasty for de novo small vessel disease. Registry data have also demonstrated that DCB angioplasty is safe; however, most of these studies are limited due to long recruitment time and a small number of patients with DCB compared to DES. Therefore, it is unclear if DCB-only strategy is safe to incorporate in routine elective clinical practice. METHODS: We compared all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular endpoints (MACE), including unplanned target lesion revascularisation (TLR) of all patients treated with DCB or DES for first presentation of stable angina due to de novo coronary artery disease between 1st January 2015 and 15th November 2019. Data were analysed with Cox regression models and cumulative hazard plots. RESULTS: We present 1237 patients; 544 treated with DCB and 693 treated with DES for de novo, mainly large-vessel coronary artery disease. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, only age and frailty remained significant adverse predictors of all-cause mortality. Univariable, cumulative hazard plots showed no difference between DCB and DES for either all-cause mortality or any of the major cardiovascular endpoints, including unplanned TLR. The results remained unchanged following propensity score-matched analysis. CONCLUSION: DCB-only angioplasty, for stable angina and predominantly large vessels, is safe compared to DES as part of routine clinical practice, in terms of all-cause mortality and MACE, including unplanned TLR.
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: Charan Yerasi; Brian C Case; Brian J Forrestal; Rebecca Torguson; William S Weintraub; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Ron Waksman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Raban V Jeger; Christoph Kaiser; Norman Mangner; Franz X Kleber; Bruno Scheller Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Gregor Fahrni; Bruno Scheller; Michael Coslovsky; Nicole Gilgen; Ahmed Farah; Marc-Alexander Ohlow; Norman Mangner; Daniel Weilenmann; Jochen Wöhrle; Florim Cuculi; Gregor Leibundgut; Sven Möbius-Winkler; Robert Zweiker; Raphael Twerenbold; Christoph Kaiser; Raban Jeger Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Eugène P McFadden; Andrew Farb; Roxana Mehran; Gregg W Stone; John Spertus; Yoshinobu Onuma; Marie-Angèle Morel; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Bram Zuckerman; William F Fearon; David Taggart; Arie-Pieter Kappetein; Mitchell W Krucoff; Pascal Vranckx; Stephan Windecker; Donald Cutlip; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas Gilbert; Jenny Neuburger; Joshua Kraindler; Eilis Keeble; Paul Smith; Cono Ariti; Sandeepa Arora; Andrew Street; Stuart Parker; Helen C Roberts; Martin Bardsley; Simon Conroy Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Vassilios S Vassiliou; Simon C Eccleshall; Ioannis Merinopoulos; Tharusha Gunawardena; Upul Wickramarachchi; Paul Richardson; Clint Maart; Sulfi Sreekumar; Chris Sawh; Trevor Wistow; Toomas Sarev; Alisdair Ryding; Tim Gilbert; Aris Perperoglou Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.460