Michael Boxberger

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Catheter Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Stent for the Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis

Background— Treatment of in-stent restenosis with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter as compared with plain balloon angioplasty has shown surprisingly low late lumen loss at 6 months and fewer major adverse cardiac events up to 2 years. We compared the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent as the current standard of care. Methods and Results— One hundred thirty-one patients with coronary in-stent restenosis were randomly assigned to treatment by a paclitaxel-coated balloon (3 &mgr;g/mm2) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent. The main inclusion criteria encompassed diameter stenosis of ≥70% and ≤22 mm in length, with a vessel diameter of 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The primary end point was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. At 6 months follow-up, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.38±0.61 mm in the drug-eluting stent group versus 0.17±0.42 mm (P=0.03) in the drug-coated balloon group, resulting in a binary restenosis rate of 12 of 59 (20%) versus 4 of 57 (7%; P=0.06). At 12 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events were 22% and 9%, respectively (P=0.08). This difference was primarily due to the need for target lesion revascularization in 4 patients (6%) in the coated-balloon group, compared with 10 patients (15%) in the stent group (P=0.15). Conclusions— Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with the paclitaxel-coated balloon was at least as efficacious and as well tolerated as the paclitaxel-eluting stent. For the treatment of in-stent restenosis, inhibition of re-restenosis does not require a second stent implantation.

Treatment of bifurcation lesions with a drug-eluting balloon: the PEPCAD V (Paclitaxel Eluting PTCA Balloon in Coronary Artery Disease) trial.

AIMS Percutaneous coronary interventions for bifurcation lesions are often complex and associated with an unsatisfactory result. The aim of this first-in-man, observational study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon in these lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS Twenty-eight patients presenting significant coronary bifurcational lesions of the left coronary artery were studied. The main branch (MB) and the side branch (SB) were dilated with a drug-eluting balloon (DEB; SeQuent Please balloon catheter , 3 µg paclitaxel/mm2 balloon surface). An open-cell bare-metal stent (BMS; Coroflex) was then deployed in the MB. Only if the SB had a TIMI flow <III and/or a residual stenosis of ≥ 50%, a BMS was implanted in the SB. The procedure was successful in all patients. At nine months, the late lumen loss (LLL) in the MB was 0.38 ± 0.46 mm and 0.21 ± 0.48 mm in the SB resulting in an MLD of 2.2 ± 0.60 mm in the MB and 1.7 ± 0.44 mm in the SB. Three patients had angiographic restenosis and in one a target lesion revascularisation (TLR) was performed. Two patients experienced a late stent thrombosis at six and eight months. No patient died. CONCLUSIONS Percutaneous treatment of bifurcation lesions with a drug-eluting balloon resulted in a procedural success of 100%. Follow-up angiography at nine months showed DES-like results in MB and SB. However, when the DEB was used in combination with a BMS (MB), the possibility of late stent thrombosis cannot be ruled out.

Treatment of small coronary arteries with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter in the PEPCAD I study: are lesions clinically stable from 12 to 36 months?

AIMS The one-year outcome of lesions in small coronary arteries by using a paclitaxel-iopromide-coated (3 µg/mm²) balloon catheter (DCB) has yielded good six-month angiographic and one-year clinical data. We now report the three-year clinical follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS One hundred and twenty patients with >70% stenoses <22 mm in length in small coronary vessels (vessel diameter: 2.25-2.8 mm) were treated with the DCB. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. The secondary endpoints encompassed all other angiographic and clinical data up to three years post intervention. In total 82/120 (68.3%) patients with a vessel diameter of 2.35±0.19 mm were treated with the DCB only, and 32/120 (26.7%) patients required additional bare metal stent (BMS) deployment. Both the 12- and 36-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 5/82 (6.1%) for DCB only and 12/32 (37.5%) for DCB+BMS, primarily due to the need for target lesion revascularisation in 4/82 (4.9%) patients and 9/32 (28.1%) (p<0.001) patients, respectively. Total MACE rate after 36 months was 18/120 (15%; intention-to-treat). CONCLUSIONS Treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease with a paclitaxel-iopromide-coated balloon exhibited good six-month angiographic and one-year clinical data that persisted during the three-year follow-up period. Randomised trials will clarify its role as an alternative to drug-eluting stents in the treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00404144).

Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter versus paclitaxel-coated stent for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: the three-year results of the PEPCAD II ISR study.

AIMS Treatment of bare metal in-stent restenosis with the paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter based on the PACCOCATH® technology has yielded superior six-month angiographic and one-year clinical results compared to a paclitaxel-eluting stent. The three-year clinical follow-up is presented. METHODS AND RESULTS One hundred and thirty-one patients with coronary bare metal in-stent restenosis (>70%, length: <22 mm, vessel diameter: 2.5-3.5 mm) were randomly treated with the paclitaxel-coated balloon (DCB) (3 µg/mm²) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (DES). Clinical follow-up information was requested from the patients and from their physicians. Quantitative angiographic and demographic baseline data were statistically not different between the groups. Per intention-to-treat analysis at 12 months, the lesion-related rates of major adverse cardiac events were 7.6% and 16.9% (p=0.11) while at 36 months the respective numbers were 9.1% and 18.5% (p=0.14). These differences were primarily due to reduced target lesion revascularisation (TLR) in DCB 4/66 (6.2%) compared to DES patients 10/65 (15.4%) (p=0.10). From 12 to 36 months, 1/65 (1.5%) DCB patients experienced a myocardial infarction while neither TLR nor death occurred in any study patient in either group during that period. CONCLUSIONS The six-month superiority of the paclitaxel-coated balloon compared to the paclitaxel-eluting stent in the treatment of bare metal coronary in-stent restenosis persisted throughout the three-year clinical follow-up period indicating stability of the lesions treated. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00393315).

The paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent pilot study (PECOPS I): acute and 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-up.

Background and Objectives: Various active stent coatings significantly reduce restenosis rates and target lesion revascularization compared to bare metal stents. Therefore, the procedural and 6‐month performance of the new paclitaxel‐eluting Coroflex™. Please stent was investigated. Methods: Ninety‐seven patients (66 ± 7.6 years, 34/97(35.1%) diabetics, 11/97(11.3%) unstable angina) were enrolled per protocol for elective single stent deployment into native coronary de‐novo or post‐PTCA restenotic lesions (stenosis: ≥ 70%, < 100%; reference diameter ≥ 2.25 mm and <3.3 mm; lesion length ≤ 16 mm) with 13/97(13.4%) lesion type A, 64/97(66%) type B1, 20/97(20.6%) type B2). The mean reference diameter was 2.88 ± 0.42 mm, the lesion length 10.03 ± 2.93 mm, and the minimal lumen diameter 0.64 ± 0.22 mm. Results: The success rates of procedure and study stent deployment were 100% and 94.8%, respectively. In 5/97(5.2%) two stents were implanted. Follow‐up was performed clinically in 86/87(98.9%) and angiographically in 77/87(88.5%) patients after 6.1 ± 0.7 months. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 7/87(8%) 1/87(1.2%) subacute thrombosis 10.3hrs post procedure, 1/87(1.2%) myocardial infarction, 5/87(5.7%) target lesion revascularizations. The in‐segment stenosis declined from 78 ± 7.2% to 9.4 ± 6.2% after stenting increasing to 31.9 ± 18.6% at follow‐up. The in‐segment late loss and the late loss index were 0.47 ± 0.6 mm and 0.23 ± 0.29 resulting in 6/77(7.8%) in‐segment restenoses three each of which were located either within or beyond the stent structure. The outcome was neither influenced by the prevalence of diabetes ( p = 0.4), hypercholesterolemia ( p = 1), hypertension ( p = 1), overweight ( p = 1), nor by the family history of coronary artery disease ( p = 0.7). Conclusion: The data of the paclitaxel‐eluting Coroflex™. Please stent tested in PECOPS I are within the range other available paclitaxel‐eluting stent.

The Paclitaxel-Eluting Coroflex™ Please Stent Pilot Study (PECOPS I)

BackgroundThe alleged superiority of drug-eluting stents over bare metal devices and those with passive coatings is diminished by a higher incidence of late target vessel thrombosis.Methods and resultsTherefore, the one-year clinical outcome of the paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex™ Please stent in patients with denovo coronary lesions was evaluated in the single-arm PECOPS I pilot study. The clinical data of 96/97 (99%) of the patients included per protocol and of 86/87 (98.9%) of those treated per protocol were available 13.1 ± 1.8 months following stent deployment. In the inclusion and treatment per protocol groups the incidence of cardiac deaths was 1/96 (1%) and 1/86 (1.2%), of myocardial infarction 3/96 (3.1%) and 1/86 (1.2%), and of target lesion revascularization 9/96 (9.4%) and 8/86 (9.3%). In patients enrolled per protocol two early thromboses (2.1%) occurred one of which two days after premature discontinuation of clopidogrel. In patients treated per protocol one thrombosis was observed after 10 hours. The one-year event-free survival was 83/96 (86.5%) in patients enrolled per protocol and 75/86 (87.2%) in those treated per protocol.ConclusionThe one-year clinical outcome of PECOPS I was within the range of other paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. The relative small number of patients enrolled in PECOPS I precludes to infer any further conclusions.

Stenting and Adjunctive Delivery of Paclitaxel Via Balloon Coating Versus Durable Polymeric Matrix for De Novo Coronary Lesions: Clinical and Angiographic Results from the Prospective Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND There is limited comparative clinical data regarding the safety and efficacy profile of paclitaxel delivery via balloon versus stent-polymer matrix. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic results of two different methods of paclitaxel delivery among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for single de novo coronary lesions. METHODS A total of 202 patients undergoing PCI due to symptomatic heart disease and at least one significant coronary artery lesion were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter non-inferiority trial. Eligible patients were randomized to a revascularization with either a paclitaxel eluting stent (PES = Coroflex Please, B.Braun) or a bare metal stent (BMS) followed by a paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) dilation (BMS = Coroflex + PCB = Sequent Please, B.Braun). Clinical follow-up was obtained at 9 months in all patients, whereas angiographic in a subset of 94 (46.5%) patients. RESULTS The baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. At 9 months, the primary endpoint of in-stent late lumen loss in BMS + PCB was comparable and non-inferior to PES (0.21 ± 0.5 vs. 0.30 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. P(non-inf)  < 0.05). At 9 months, the incidence of MACE (7.0 vs. 6.9%, HR = 1, 95%CI: 0.3-2.8; P = 0.99), comprising the occurrence of myocardial infarction (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.62, 95%CI: 0.4-6.5; P = 0.32), target lesion revascularization (6.9 vs. 5.0%, HR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.4-4.4; p = 0.54) and stent thrombosis (4.9 vs. 3.0%, HR = 2.01, 95%CI: 0.5-7.4; P = 0.74) was comparable between BMS + PCB and PES, respectively. In the BMS + PCB group, thrombosis tended to occur within 30 days (3.9 vs. 1.0%; P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS Paclitaxel delivery via drug coated balloon or polymer-stent matrix achieved comparable angiographic and clinical results among patients with de novo coronary lesions. BMS + PCB revascularization was associated with a higher rate of stent thrombosis when compared to newer generation drug eluting stents, therefore, should be recommended as a bail-out for PCB alone angioplasty.

The paclitaxel-eluting coroflex stent study II (PECOPS II) acute and 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-up, 1-year clinical follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Paclitaxel-coated stents have proven their efficacy for reducing restenosis in de novo coronary artery lesions and in-stent restenoses with superiority compared to bare metal stents. This study was performed to evaluate the procedural and 1 year results of the Paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent in coronary artery lesions. METHODS One-hundred and twenty-nine patients (66.2 +/- 8.2 years, 31.0% diabetics, 20.2% unstable angina, 41.8% multivessel disease) were enrolled per protocol for elective single stent deployment into native de novo or post-PTCA restenotic coronary lesions.The mean reference diameter was 2.84 +/- 0.43 mm, the lesion length 12.51 +/- 4.6 mm, and the minimal lumen diameter 0.75 +/- 0.29 mm. Follow-up was performed clinically in 129/129 (100%) after 6 and 12 months and angiographically in 120/129 (93%) patients after 6 months. RESULTS The success rates of the procedure and deployment were 100% and 95.3%, respectively. The in-stent late loss and the late-loss index were 0.27 +/- 0.59 mm and 0.17 +/- 0.40 resulting in binary in-stent restenoses in 16/120 (13.3%) subjects and in-segment restenoses in 20/120 (16.7%) subjects. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 23/129 (17.8%) during the first 6 months of follow-up with 3/129 (2.3%) myocardial infarctions, 1/129 (0.8%) secondary to stent thrombosis. From 6 to 12 months, 2/129 (1.6%) nonlesion related PCI were performed. CONCLUSION The data of the Paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent evaluated in PECOPS II are within the range of the other currently available Paclitaxel-eluting stent.

The paclitaxel-eluting coroflex™ please stent study (PECOPS I): The 3-year clinical follow-up†

Background: The evaluation of drug‐eluting devices in humans should include longterm follow‐up owing to risk of late target vessel thrombosis with the possible fatal sequel. Methods and Results: Therefore, the three‐year clinical outcome of the paclitaxeleluting Corofiex® Please stent in patients with de‐novo coronary lesions was evaluated in the single‐arm PECOPS I pilot study. The clinical data of 123/125 (98.4%) of all patients included were available 3.05 ± 0.12 years following stent deployment. In the intention‐to‐treat analysis the incidence of cardiac death was 9/123 (7.3%), of myocardial infarction 4/123 (3.3%), and of in‐segment target lesion revascularization 14/123 (11.4%). Target lesion revascularizations tended (p = 0.30) to occur less frequently (9/96 (16.6%)) in those patients in whom the stent length was longer than the lesion (4.80 ± 2.71 mm) compared to 5/27 (18.5%) in those patients in whom the stent was shorter than the lesion (−3.0 ± 2.43 mm). Stent thromboses occurred in 2/123 (1.6%) patients during the first 6 months, one of which two days after premature discontinuation of clopidogrel. The total 3‐year MACE rate was 22/123 (17.9%). Conclusion: The present study describes the paclitaxel‐eluting Corotlex Please stent as a safe device with good long term performance when deployed in native coronary arteries. The occurrence of late major adverse events and late thromboses in particular seem to be very low.

Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents in a large-scale all-comers population

Objective The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free sirolimus coated, ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent (PF-SES) in an unselected patient population with a focus on acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Furthermore, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) with short (≤6 months) versus long (>6 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were also studied. Methods Patients who received PF-SES were investigated in an unselected large-scale international, single-armed, multicenter, ‘all comers’ observational study. The primary endpoint was the 9-month target lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate, whereas secondary endpoints included the 9-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and procedural success rates. A priori defined subgroups such as patients with ACS, diabetes, lesion subsets and procedural characteristics relative to DAPT were investigated. Results A total of 2877 patients of whom 1084 had ACS were treated with PF-SES (1.31±0.75 stents per patient). At 9 months, the accumulated overall TLR rate was 2.3% (58/2513). There was no significant difference between ACS and stable CAD (2.6% vs 2.1%, p=0.389). However, the overall MACE rate was 4.3% (108/2513) with a higher rate in patients with ACS when compared with the stable CAD subgroup (6.1%, 58/947 vs 3.2%, 50/1566, p<0.001). Conclusions PF-SES angioplasty is safe and effective in the daily clinical routine with low rates of TLR and MACE in an unselected patient population. Our data are in agreement with prior clinical findings that extended DAPT duration beyond 6 months do not improve clinical outcomes in patients with stable CAD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02629575). Trial registration number NCT02629575.