67 Safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloons – a retrospective observational study. (6th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ali, Mohammad; Kumar, Abhishek
• Is Part Of: Heart. Volume 108(2022)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A49
• Page End: A50
• Publication Date: 2022-06-06
• Subjects: Drug-coated balloon -- Drug-eluting balloon -- instent restenosis; Heart -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2022-BCS.67
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1355-6037

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are an increasingly important component in the interventionalist's toolkit. Whilst now a class I recommendation for instent restenosis (ISR), their use in de novo coronary lesions and large vessels remains understudied. With evident limitations of stent implantation, including exaggerated neointimal growth and late stent restenosis, the need for further study into the safety and efficacy of DCBs for various indications remains paramount.AimsOur aim was to evaluate the use of DCB at our centre, including in de novo disease and large vessel size, patient characteristics and risk factors, efficacy, and complication rates. MethodsPatients treated with a DCB from March 2020 to September 2021 were included. Electronic notes and procedure reports were analysed. Information was collated related to patient demographics and cardiovascular risk factors, index procedure, indication, DCB type and size and complications including bail-out stenting, 30-day re-admission and target vessel and lesion revascularisation (TVR, TLR).Results61 patients were included: M:F 43:18, mean age 65 years (36–88). 59% of cases were emergencies, the remainder were elective. There was de novo coronary disease in the majority (44) whilst 15 cases had ISR and 2 had mixed disease. We used a Sirolimus-coated balloon in 39 cases (MagicTouch, Selution), Paclitaxel-coated (BioStream) in 18 and a combination in 4. Mean diameter used was 3.02 mm, mean length 22.7 mm. Larger DCBs were used in elective cases compared with emergencies (2.94 mm vs 2.7 mm, p-vale <0.05). Bail-out stenting was required in 2 cases for suboptimal results and in 1 for coronary dissection. 6 patients were re-admitted within 30-days. 1 had acute stent thrombosis of a non-DCB vessel due to drug non-compliance. 4 patients had no new CAD on repeat angiography. 1 was treated medically. No patient required TLR or TVR at 30-days. Conclusion: We have demonstrated good safety and efficacy of DCBs at our centre. Our experience supports the use of DCBs in de novo coronary lesions and in large vessels although large RCTs are required to elucidate this further. Conflict of Interest: No