Long-term efficacy of drug coated balloons compared with new generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing drug coated balloons (DCB) with new generation drug-eluting stents (nDES) for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions are lacking. METHODS: From 2009 to 2016, DCB or nDES used for treatment of de novo coronary lesions at our institution were included, in total 1,197 DEB and 6,458 nDES. We evaluated target lesions restenosis (TLR) and definite target lesion thrombosis (TLT). Propensity score modeling were utilized to study adjusted associations between treatment and outcomes. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 901days. DCB patients were older, with higher cardiovascular risk profile. Bailout stenting after DCB was performed in 8% of lesions. The cumulative rate of TLR and TLT was 7.0 vs. 4.9% and 0.2 vs. 0.8% for DCB vs. nDES, respectively. Before adjustment, DCB was associated with a higher risk of TLR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.94] and a non-significantly lower risk of TLT (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.07-1.24), compared to nDES. In the propensity matched population consisted of 1,197 DCB and 1,197 nDES, treatment with DCB was associated with similar risk for TLR (adjusted HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.72-1.53) but significantly lower risk for TLT (adjusted HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.82) compared to nDES. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with DCB was associated with a similar risk of TLR and a lower risk of definite TLT compared with nDES. In selected cases, DCB appears as a good alternative to nDES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

Abciximab bolus with optional infusion in intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: The standard abciximab regimen is a bolus dose followed by a 12-h infusion. Whether the bolus dose alone is sufficient for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving a high loading dose of clopidogrel is unknown. DESIGN: In an observational study, 693 consecutive patients were treated with abciximab during percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Totally 354 patients received standard strategy of abciximab bolus and infusion followed by 339 patients that recieved abciximab bolus only (271 patients) or bolus and infusion if suboptimal result (68 patients) in combination with a higher loading dose of clopidogrel (600 mg) - the modified strategy. RESULTS: The two groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics and in hospital bleeding events. At 30 days, the composite of death, re-infarction or target vessel revascularization was 9.1% in the standard and 7.5% in the modified strategy (p = 0.45). The rate of stent thrombosis was lower in the modified strategy group with 0% and 2.3% in the standard group (p < 0.001) and the mean total medical cost was lower in the modified strategy group with €8032 and €8665 in the standard group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention with a loading dose of 600 mg clopidogrel, it seems safe and cost-saving to give abciximab bolus with optional infusion.

Clopidogrel treatment before percutaneous coronary intervention reduces adverse cardiac events.

OBJECTIVE: Platelet inhibition during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) generally reduces adverse cardiac events. There are very few data on the combination of aspirin and the platelet adenosine diphosphate-receptor inhibitor clopidogrel given before the intervention. DESIGN: In a non-randomized comparison, a total of 706 consecutive patients received clopidogrel 375 mg in addition to aspirin on the day before PCI. The control group consisted of 724 consecutive PCI patients receiving only aspirin pre-treatment. RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced regarding baseline characteristics. Pre-treatment with clopidogrel reduced the in-hospital composite of death, myocardial infarction or urgent revascularization by 41% compared to the control (8.2% versus 4.8%, respectively; p = 0.010). This was due to a decreased incidence of myocardial infarction (7.2% versus 4.4%; p = 0.024) and percutaneous reintervention (1.2% versus 0.3%; p = 0.039). There was no difference in femoral complications between the groups. For every patient in the clopidogrel group, there was a cost reduction of SEK 447 ($40 United States currency). CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel treatment in addition to aspirin before PCI was associated with a reduction of in-hospital adverse cardiac events. It was also safe and cost-saving.