Comparison of angiographic result and long-term outcome in patients with in-stent restenosis treated with cutting balloon or with scoring balloon angioplasty.

Autor:	Leick J; Heart Centre Trier, Department of Cardiology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital, Trier, Germany. Email: j.leick@bbtgruppe.de., Rheude T; Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, German Heart Centre, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany., Cassese S; Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, German Heart Centre, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany., Krause T; Heart Centre Trier, Department of Cardiology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital, Trier, Germany., Gjata A; Heart Centre Trier, Department of Cardiology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital, Trier, Germany., Saad L; Heart Centre Trier, Department of Cardiology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital, Trier, Germany., Lindner M; Heart Centre Trier, Department of Cardiology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital, Trier, Germany., Steinbach M; Heart Centre Trier, Department of Cardiology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital, Trier, Germany., Kastrati A; Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, German Heart Centre, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany., Werner N; Heart Centre Trier, Department of Cardiology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital, Trier, Germany.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The Journal of invasive cardiology [J Invasive Cardiol] 2024 Oct; Vol. 36 (10).
DOI:	10.25270/jic/24.00070
Abstrakt:	Background: Lesion preparation with a cutting (CB) or scoring balloon (SB) is often used in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, there are no comparative studies. Methods: We analyzed 81 patients (CB group: n = 38; SB group: n = 43) who had a calcified ISR from November 2019 to September 2021. The primary endpoint was strategy success (less than 20% residual stenosis); the secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events during the 1-year follow-up. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed to evaluate the strategy success. Results: The patients in the CB group were more likely to have a severe calcified ISR (P = .001) and multiple stent layers (P = .001). A total of 4 patients (79.0%) reached the primary endpoint. Residual stenosis greater than 20% was more common in the CB group (39.5% vs 4.7%; P = .001). In the multivariate analysis, an effect of the intervention group on the achievement of the primary endpoint could be excluded (estimate 1.06; standard error 1.07; P = .322). The time interval of stent implantation prior to CB/SB (P = .007) and severe calcified ISR (P = .009) had a negative impact on reaching the primary endpoint. During the follow-up, there were no differences in rates of cardiac death (CB 2.5% vs. SB 1.2%; P = .598), acute myocardial infarction (CB 0% vs. SB 4.9%; P = .119), and target lesion failure (CB 3.7% vs SB 12.3%; P = .074). Conclusions: In our cohort, multivariate analysis showed that lesion preparation with CB or SB must be considered equivalent in terms of angiographic results. Factors like severe calcified ISR and the time interval of prior stent implantation negatively influenced the angiographic outcome.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu