Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this trial, patients with femoropopliteal artery disease were assigned to standard angioplasty or treatment with a paclitaxel-coated balloon. At 12 months, primary patency was seen more frequently with the drug-coated balloon than with standard angioplasty. Atherosclerotic disease in the femoral and popliteal (femoropopliteal) arteries compromises perfusion to the legs and feet. Although treatment with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty is effective in initially restoring blood flow, restenosis from vessel recoil and neointimal hyperplasia occur in more than 60% of patients within 1 year after the procedure. 1 Stents act as scaffolds to prevent recoil and reduce the incidence of restenosis, 2 – 9 but the permanent presence of an intravascular prosthesis may limit subsequent therapeutic options. Stent fracture, although infrequent, can have negative consequences. 10 – 13 Results with drug-eluting stents in peripheral vessels have varied, 14 – 18 although a recent study showed . . .

AbstractObjectivesTo investigate whether a less intense antiplatelet regimen could be used for people receiving drug coated balloons.DesignMulticentre, randomised, open label, assessor blind, non-inferiority trial (REC-CAGEFREE II).Setting41 hospitals in China between 27 November 2021 and 21 January 2023.Participants1948 adults (18-80 years) with acute coronary syndrome who received treatment exclusively with paclitaxel-coated balloons according to the international drug coated balloon consensus.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the stepwise dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) de-escalation group (n=975) consisting of aspirin plus ticagrelor for one month, followed by five months of ticagrelor monotherapy, and then six months of aspirin monotherapy, or to the standard DAPT group (n=973) consisting of aspirin plus ticagrelor for 12 months.Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (all cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding) at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority was established if the upper limit of the one sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute risk difference was smaller than 3.2%.ResultsThe mean age of participants was 59.2 years, 74.9% were men, 30.5% had diabetes, and 20.6% were at high bleeding risk. 60.9% of treated lesions were in small vessels, and 17.8% were in-stent restenosis. The mean drug coated balloon diameter was 2.72 mm (standard deviation 0.49). At 12 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 87 (8.9%) participants in the stepwise de-escalation group and 84 (8.6%) in the standard group (difference 0.36%; upper boundary of the one sided 95% CI 2.47%; Pnon-inferiority=0.013). In the stepwise de-escalation versus standard groups, BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in four versus 16 participants (0.4% v 1.6%, difference −1.19% (95% CI −2.07% to −0.31%), P=0.008), and all cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and revascularisation occurred in 84 versus 74 participants (8.6% v 7.6%, difference 1.05% (95% CI −1.37% to 3.47%), P=0.396). Treated as having hierarchical clinical importance by the win ratio method, more wins were noted with the stepwise de-escalation group (14.4% wins) compared with the standard group (10.1% wins) for the predefined hierarchical composite endpoint of all cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, BARC type 3 bleeding, revascularisation, and BARC type 2 bleeding (win ratio 1.43 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.83), P=0.004). Results from the per-protocol and the intention-to-treat analysis were similar.ConclusionsAmong participants with acute coronary syndrome who could be treated by drug coated balloons exclusively, a stepwise DAPT de-escalation was non-inferior to 12 month DAPT for net adverse clinical events.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04971356

The long-term impact of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of DCB angioplasty with rescue stenting to intended drug-eluting stent (DES) deployment for patients with de novo, non-complex coronary artery lesions. REC-CAGEFREE I was an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 43 sites in China. After successful lesion pre-dilatation, patients aged 18 years or older with de novo, non-complex coronary artery disease (irrespective of target vessel diameter) and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based centralised system with block randomisation (block size of two, four, or six) and stratified by site, to paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty with the option of rescue stenting due to an unsatisfactory result (DCB group) or intended deployment of second-generation thin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents (DES group). The primary outcome was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE; including cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically and physiologically indicated target lesion revascularisation) assessed at 24 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to treatment). Non-inferiority was established if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the absolute risk difference was smaller than 2·68%. Safety was assessed in the ITT population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04561739. It is closed to accrual and extended follow-up is ongoing. Between Feb 5, 2021, and May 1, 2022, 2272 patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group (1133 [50%]) or the DES group (1139 [50%]). Median age at the time of randomisation was 62 years (IQR 54–69), 1574 (69·3%) of 2272 were male, 698 (30·7%) were female, and all patients were of Chinese ethnicity. 106 (9·4%) of 1133 patients in the DCB group received rescue DES after unsatisfactory DCB angioplasty. As of data cutoff (May 1, 2024), median follow-up was 734 days (IQR 731–739). At 24 months, the DoCE occurred in 72 (6·4%) of 1133 patients in the DCB group and 38 (3·4%) of 1139 in the DES group, with a risk difference of 3·04% in the cumulative event rate (upper boundary of the one-sided 95% CI 4·52; pnon-inferiority=0·65; two-sided 95% CI 1·27–4·81; p=0·0008); the criterion for non-inferiority was not met. During intervention, no acute vessel closures occurred in the DCB group and one (0·1%) of 1139 patients in the DES group had acute vessel closure. Periprocedural myocardial infarction occurred in ten (0·9%) of 1133 patients in the DCB group and nine (0·8%) in the DES group. In patients with de novo, non-complex coronary artery disease, irrespective of vessel diameter, a strategy of DCB angioplasty with rescue stenting did not achieve non-inferiority compared with the intended DES implantation in terms of the DoCE at 2 years, which indicates that DES should remain the preferred treatment for this patient population. Xijing Hospital and Shenqi Medical. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

In the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DESs) regarding clinical outcome up to 12 months, but data beyond 1 year is sparse. We aimed to test the long-term efficacy and safety of DCBs regarding clinical endpoints in an all-comer population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In this prespecified long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients from 14 clinical sites in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria with de-novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned 1:1 to DCB or second-generation DES and followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events (ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation [TVR]), all-cause death, probable or definite stent thrombosis, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding type 3–5). Analyses were performed on the full analysis set according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for 1 month after DCB and 6 months after DES with stable symptoms, but 12 months with acute coronary syndromes. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01574534 and is ongoing. Between April 10, 2012, and Feb 1, 2017, of 883 patients assessed, 758 (86%) patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group (n=382) or the DES group (n=376). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 15% in both the DCB and DES groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·68–1·45; p=0·95). The two groups were also very similar concerning the single components of adverse cardiac events: cardiac death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 5% vs 4%, HR 1·29, 95% CI 0·63–2·66; p=0·49), non-fatal myocardial infarction (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 6%, HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·45–1·51; p=0·52), and TVR (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 9%, HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·58–1·56; p=0·83). Rates of all-cause death were very similar in DCB versus DES patients (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 8%, HR 1·05, 95% CI 0·62–1·77; p=0·87). Rates of probable or definite stent thrombosis (Kaplan-Meier estimate 1% vs 2%; HR 0·33, 95% CI 0·07–1·64; p=0·18) and major bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2% vs 4%, HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·17–1·13; p=0·088) were numerically lower in DCB versus DES, however without reaching significance. There is maintained efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease up to 3 years. Swiss National Science Foundation, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical.

The optimal technique of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients at high bleeding risk is not known. The hypothesis of the DEBUT trial was that percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-coated balloons is non-inferior to percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stents for this population. The DEBUT trial is a randomised, single-blind non-inferiority trial done at five sites in Finland. Patients were eligible if they had an ischaemic de-novo lesion in a coronary artery or bypass graft that could be treated with drug-coated balloons, at least one risk factor for bleeding, and a reference vessel diameter of 2·5–4·0 mm. Those with myocardial infarction with ST-elevation, bifurcation lesions needing a two-stent technique, in-stent restenosis, and flow-limiting dissection or substantial recoil (>30%) of the target lesion after predilation were excluded. After successful predilation of the target lesion, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computer-generated random sequence, to percutaneous coronary intervention with a balloon coated with paclitaxel and iopromide or a bare-metal stent. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events at 9 months. Non-inferiority was shown if the absolute risk difference was no more than 3%. All prespecified analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01781546. Between May 22, 2013, and Jan 16, 2017, 220 patients were recruited for the study and 208 patients were assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-coated balloon (n=102) or bare metal stent (n=106). At 9 months, major adverse cardiac events had occurred in one patient (1%) in the drug-coated balloon group and in 15 patients (14%) in the bare-metal stent group (absolute risk difference −13·2 percentage points [95% CI −6·2 to −21·1], risk ratio 0·07 [95% CI 0·01 to 0·52]; p<0·00001 for non-inferiority and p=0·00034 for superiority). Two definitive stent thrombosis events occurred in the bare metal stent group but no acute vessel closures in the drug-coated balloon group. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-coated balloon was superior to bare-metal stents in patients at bleeding risk. The drug-coated balloon-only coronary intervention is a novel strategy to treat this difficult patient population. Comparison of this approach to the new generation drug-eluting stents is warranted in the future. B Braun Medical AG, AstraZeneca, and Competitive State Research Funding of the Kuopio University Hospital Catchment Area.

Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia is the severest manifestation of peripheral arterial disease and presents with ischaemic pain at rest or tissue loss (ulceration, gangrene, or both), or both. We compared the effectiveness of a vein bypass first with a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major amputation and death in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 was an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial done at 41 vascular surgery units in the UK (n=39), Sweden (n=1), and Denmark (n=1). Eligible patients were those who presented to hospital-based vascular surgery units with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic disease and who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either vein bypass (vein bypass group) or best endovascular treatment (best endovascular treatment group) as their first revascularisation procedure through a secure online randomisation system. Participants were excluded if they had ischaemic pain or tissue loss considered not to be primarily due to atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease. Most vein bypasses used the great saphenous vein and originated from the common or superficial femoral arteries. Most endovascular interventions comprised plain balloon angioplasty with selective use of plain or drug eluting stents. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Data were collected locally at participating centres. In England, Wales, and Sweden, centralised databases were used to collect information on amputations and deaths. Data were analysed centrally at the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit. The primary outcome was amputation-free survival defined as time to first major (above the ankle) amputation or death from any cause measured in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by monitoring serious adverse events up to 30-days after first revascularisation. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27728689. Between July 22, 2014, and Nov 30, 2020, 345 participants (65 [19%] women and 280 [81%] men; median age 72·5 years [62·7–79·3]) with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned: 172 (50%) to the vein bypass group and 173 (50%) to the best endovascular treatment group. Major amputation or death occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·35 [95% CI 1·02–1·80]; p=0·037). 91 (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group died (adjusted HR 1·37 [95% CI 1·00–1·87]). In both groups the most common causes of morbidity and death, including that occurring within 30 days of their first revascularisation, were cardiovascular (61 deaths in the vein bypass group and 49 in the best endovascular treatment group) and respiratory events (25 deaths in the vein bypass group and 23 in the best endovascular treatment group; number of cardiovascular and respiratory deaths were not mutually exclusive). In the BASIL-2 trial, a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy was associated with a better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths in the best endovascular treatment group. These data suggest that more patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion should be considered for a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy. UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Programme.

AbstractObjectiveTo determine which primary endovascular revascularisation strategy represents the most clinically effective treatment for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who require endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.DesignThree arm, open label, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial (BASIL-3).Setting35 UK NHS vascular units.ParticipantsPatients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to femoro-popliteal plain balloon angioplasty with or without bare metal stenting (PBA±BMS), drug coated balloon angioplasty with or without bare metal stenting (DCBA±BMS), or drug eluting stenting (DES) as their first revascularisation strategy.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was amputation free survival defined as time to first major amputation or death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included the composite components of the primary outcome, major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, and other prespecified clinical and patient reported outcome measures. Serious adverse events were collected up to 30 days after the first revascularisation procedure.ResultsBetween 29 January 2016 and 31 August 2021, 481 participants were randomised (167 (35%) women, mean age 71.8 years (standard deviation 10.8)). Major amputation or death occurred in 106 of 160 (66%) participants in the PBA±BMS group, 97 of 161 (60%) in the DCBA±BMS group, and 93 of 159 (58%) in the DES group (adjusted hazard ratios: PBA±BMS v DCBA±BMS: 0.84, 97.5% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.16, P=0.22; PBA±BMS v DES: 0.83, 0.60 to 1.15, P=0.20). No differences in serious adverse events were reported between the groups.ConclusionsNeither DCBA±BMS nor DES conferred significant clinical benefit over PBA±BMS in the femoro-popliteal segment in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia undergoing endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN14469736

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are a novel therapeutic strategy for small native coronary artery disease. However, their safety and efficacy is poorly defined in comparison with drug-eluting stents (DES). BASKET-SMALL 2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial. 758 patients with de-novo lesions (<3 mm in diameter) in coronary vessels and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive angioplasty with DCB versus implantation of a second-generation DES after successful predilatation via an interactive internet-based response system. Dual antiplatelet therapy was given according to current guidelines. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of DCB versus DES regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation) after 12 months. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 4% in MACE. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01574534. Between April 10, 2012, and February 1, 2017, 382 patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group and 376 to DES group. Non-inferiority of DCB versus DES was shown because the 95% CI of the absolute difference in MACE in the per-protocol population was below the predefined margin (−3·83 to 3·93%, p=0·0217). After 12 months, the proportions of MACE were similar in both groups of the full-analysis population (MACE was 7·5% for the DCB group vs 7·3% for the DES group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·58–1·64], p=0·9180). There were five (1·3%) cardiac-related deaths in the DES group and 12 (3·1%) in the DCB group (full analysis population). Probable or definite stent thrombosis (three [0·8%] in the DCB group vs four [1·1%] in the DES group; HR 0·73 [0·16–3·26]) and major bleeding (four [1·1%] in the DCB group vs nine [2·4%] in the DES group; HR 0·45 [0·14–1·46]) were the most common adverse events. In small native coronary artery disease, DCB was non-inferior to DES regarding MACE up to 12 months, with similar event rates for both treatment groups. Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical AG.

BackgroundRecent trends on outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) suggest improvements in early survival. However, with the ever-changing landscape in management of CS, we sought to identify age-based trends in these outcomes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use among patients with both AMI and non-AMI associated shock.MethodsWe queried the 2005–2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases to identify patients with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. Trends in the incidence of hospital-mortality, and use of MCS such as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella/TandemHeart (IMP), and extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were analyzed within the overall population and among different age-categories (50 and under, 51–65, 66–80 and 81–99 years). We also made comparisons between patient groups admitted with CS complicating AMI and those with non-AMI associated CS.ResultsWe studied 144,254 cases of CS, of which 55.4% cases were associated with an AMI. Between 2005 and 2014, an overall decline in IABP use (29.8–17.7%; ptrend < 0.01), and an uptrend in IMP use (0.1–2.6%; ptrend < 0.01), ECMO use (0.3–1.8%; ptrend < 0.01) and in-hospital mortality (44.1–52.5% AMI related, 49.6–53.5% non-AMI related; ptrend < 0.01) was seen. Patients aged 81–99 years had the lowest rate of MCS use (14.8%), whereas those aged 51–65 years had highest rate of MCS use (32.3%). Multivariable analysis revealed that patients aged 51-65 years (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.40–1.52; p<0.001), 66–80 years (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 2.39–2.63; p<0.01) and 81–99 years (aOR 5.04, 95% CI 4.78–5.32; p<0.01) had significantly higher hospital mortality compared to patients aged ≤ 50 years. Patients admitted with CS complicating AMI were older and had more comorbidities, but lower hospital mortality (45.0 vs. 48.2%; p < 0.001) when compared to non-AMI related CS. We also noted that the proportion of patients admitted with CS complicating AMI significantly decreased from 2005 to 2014 (65.3–45.6%; ptrend < 0.01) whereas those admitted without an associated AMI increased.ConclusionsIABP use has declined whereas IMP and ECMO use has increased over time among CS admissions. Older age was associated with an incrementally higher independent risk for hospital mortality. Recent trends indicate an increase in both proportion of patients admitted with CS without associated AMI and in-hospital mortality across all CS admissions irrespective of AMI status.

Patients with peripheral artery disease were randomly assigned to receive endovascular intervention with paclitaxel-coated or uncoated devices. In an unplanned interim analysis, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups.