The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons for the treatment of in-stent restenosis as compared with drug-eluting stents and with conventional balloon angioplasty
- Authors
- Oh, Pyung Chun; Suh, Soon Yong; Kang, Woong Chol; Lee, Kyounghoon; Han, Seung Hwan; Ahn, Taehoon; Shin, Eak Kyun
- Issue Date
- May-2016
- Publisher
- KOREAN ASSOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
- Keywords
- Drug eluting stent; Coronary restenosis
- Citation
- KOREAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, v.31, no.3, pp.501 - 506
- Journal Title
- KOREAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- Volume
- 31
- Number
- 3
- Start Page
- 501
- End Page
- 506
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/gachon/handle/2020.sw.gachon/8355
- DOI
- 10.3904/kjim.2014.189
- ISSN
- 1226-3303
- Abstract
- Background/Aims: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still associated with a high incidence of recurrence. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for the treatment of ISR as compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) and drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods: Between January 2006 and May 2012 a total of 177 patients (188 lesions, 64.1 +/- 11.7 years old) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR were retrospectively enrolled. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with DEB (n = 58, 32.8%), conventional BA (n = 65, 36.7%), or DES (n = 54, 30.5%). The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Baseline characteristics were not different except for a history of previous MI, which was more frequent in patients treated by conventional BA or DES than in patients treated by DEB (40.0% vs. 48.1% vs. 17.2%, respectively, p = 0.002). The total incidences of MACEs were 10.7%, 7.4%, and 15.4% in patients treated by DEB, DES, or conventional BA, respectively (p > 0.05). TLR was more frequent in patients treated by conventional BA than in patients treated by DEB or DES, but this was not statistically significant (10.8% vs. 6.9% vs. 3.7%, p > 0.05 between all group pairs, respectively). Conclusions: This study showed that percutaneous coronary intervention using DEB might be a feasible alternative to conventional BA or DES implantation for treatment of coronary ISR. Further large-scaled, randomized study assessing long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes will be needed.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - 의과대학 > 의학과 > 1. Journal Articles
![qrcode](https://api.qrserver.com/v1/create-qr-code/?size=55x55&data=https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/gachon/handle/2020.sw.gachon/8355)
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.