Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on June 1, 2009

Circulation. 2009
Published online before print June 1, 2009, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.839282
A more recent version of this article appeared on June 16, 2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the course for this article:
Circulation: June 16, 2009, Volume 119, Number 23
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
119/23/2986    most recent
CIRCULATIONAHA.108.839282v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Unverdorben, M.
Right arrow Articles by Scheller, B.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Unverdorben, M.
Right arrow Articles by Scheller, B.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Compound via MeSH
*Substance via MeSH
Medline Plus Health Information
*Angioplasty
Hazardous Substances DB
*TAXOL
Related Collections
Right arrow Restenosis
Right arrow Smooth muscle proliferation and differentiation
Right arrow Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents
Right arrowRelated Article

Submitted on November 28, 2008
Accepted on April 1, 2009

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

Martin Unverdorben MD, Christian Vallbracht MD, Bodo Cremers MD, Hubertus Heuer MD, Christian Hengstenberg MD, Christian Maikowski MD, Gerald S. Werner MD, Diethmar Antoni MD, Franz X. Kleber MD, Wolfgang Bocksch MD, Matthias Leschke MD, Hanns Ackermann PhD, Michael Boxberger PhD, Ulrich Speck PhD, Ralf Degenhardt PhD, and Bruno Scheller MD*

From the Institut für Klinische Forschung (M.U., R.D.) and Kardiologische Klinik (C.V.), Herz- und Kreislaufzentrum, Rotenburg an der Fulda, Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes (B.C., B.S.), Homburg/Saar, Medizinische Klinik, Kardiologie, St. Johannes Hospital (H.H.), Dortmund, Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg (C.H.), Kerckhoff Klinik (C.M.), Bad Nauheim, Medizinische Klinik I, Klinikum Darmstadt (G.S.W.), I. Medizinische Abteilung, Krankenhaus Bogenhausen (D.A.), München, Klinik für Innere Medizin, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin (F.X.K.), Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Universitätsklinikum Charité (W.B.), B. Braun Melsungen AG, Vascular Systems (M.B.), Institut für Radiologie, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (U.S.), Berlin, Klinik für Kardiologie, Pneumologie und Angiologie, Klinikum Esslingen (M.L.), and Zentrum für medizinische Informatik, Abteilung für Biomathematik, Universität Frankfurt/Main (H.A.), Germany.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bruno.scheller{at}uks.eu.

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 µg/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.


Key words: balloon • drug-eluting stents • restenosis • angioplasty • revascularization


Related Article:

Circulation: Clinical Summaries
Circulation 2009 119: 2963-2964. [Extract] [Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Circ Cardiovasc IntervHome page
R. Waksman and R. Pakala
Drug-Eluting Balloon: The Comeback Kid?
Circ Cardiovasc Interv, August 1, 2009; 2(4): 352 - 358.
[Full Text] [PDF]