Open Access

The use of paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) in acute coronary syndrome of small vessel de novo lesions: an analysis of a prospective ‘real world’ registry

  • Ahmad Syadi Mahmood Zuhdi1Email author,
  • Uwe Zeymer2,
  • Matthias Waliszewski3,
  • Martin Spiecker4,
  • Muhammad Dzafir Ismail1,
  • Michael Boxberger3,
  • Marcus Ferrari5,
  • Imran Zainal Abidin1 and
  • Wan Azman Wan Ahmad1
SpringerPlus20165:373

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2014-y

Received: 26 January 2016

Accepted: 16 March 2016

Published: 25 March 2016

Abstract

Background

Paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty in small vessel de novo lesions has favourable outcome and appears to be an alternative to stent implantation. However there is limitted data on its use specifically in small vessel acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

We analyse patients data from the SeQuent Please Small Vessel ‘PCB only’ Registry. It was an international, prospective, multicentre registry which enrolled patients with de novo lesions of small vessel diameter (≥2.0, ≤2.75 mm). Patients were divided into the ACS group and the non-ACS group and comparison made between the two groups. The primary end-point was clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 9 months. Secondary end-points were acute technical success, 30-day and 9-month major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction or TLR) (MACE) and the occurence of definite lesion and vessel thrombosis.

Results

A total of 447 patients were enrolled for this registry of which 105 (23.5 %) patients were ACS (STEMI and NSTEMI). The procedural success rate was 98.1 % in ACS group. The mean vessel diameter for the ACS and non-ACS group were 2.15 ± 0.36 and 2.14 ± 0.35 respectively. Similar mean lesion length of around 15.5 mm was recorded in both groups. Additional stenting was required in 9.3 % ACS and 6.5 % non-ACS, p = 0.308. Reasons for additional stenting were target lesion related dissection (57.6 %) or non-target lesion stenosis (41.2 %). More than half of the patients had 4 weeks of aspirin/clopidogrel (57.1 % ACS, 60.5 % non-ACS). No significant difference between the ACS and non-ACS groups with regards to the duration and types of DAPT during follow up. At 30-day, MACE rate were (0 % ACS vs 0.3 % non-ACS, p = 0.599). At 9 months TLR rates were (1.2 % ACS vs 4.3 % non-ACS, p = 0.180) and MACE rates (3.6 % ACS vs 5.0 % non-ACS, p = 0.601).

Conclusion

PCB in ACS with small vessel de novo lesions has low 30-day and 9-month TLR/MACE rates comparable to non-ACS small vessels. Thus it appears to be an alternative to stent implantation in the treatment ACS.

Keywords

PaclitaxelBalloon angioplastySmall vesselsAcute coronary syndromeMACE

Background

Paclitaxel coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty has proven benefit in the treatment of bare-metal and drug-eluting in-stent restenosis (ISR) (Scheller et al. 2006, 2008, 2012; Harbara et al. 2011; Byrne et al. 2013). The efficacy of PCB in treating small vessel de-novo lesions is also emerging with promising data so far (Ali et al. 2011; Zeymer et al. 2014). However, the data on PCB angioplasty specifically in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is still lacking. Intravascular plaque rupture and thrombus formation in ACS cast doubt on the effectiveness of paclitaxel drug to be adequately delivered to the vessel wall. However, the increased risk of in-stent thrombosis and restenosis in small vessel PCI with stents (Akiyama et al. 1998; Kasaoka et al. 1998) has made PCB angioplasty, which leaves no intravascular metal a good alternative in theory. Therefore we utilise patients data from a prospective ‘real world’ registry to determine the feasibility of PCB angioplasty in acute coronary syndrome of small vessel de-novo lesions by means of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 30-day and 9 months follow up.

Methods

Centres

Prospective patients enrolment was done in Germany (20 centres), Malaysia (4 centres), Singapore (3 centres), Italy (2 centres), France (1 centre), Finland (1 centre), Poland (1 centre), China (1 centre) and Iran (1 centre). The study was approved by the individual institutional review boards of the participating centres.

Materials

In this registry the paclitaxel coated percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) catheter based on the Paccocath Technology (SeQuent Please, B. Braun Melsungen AG) was used.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Patients ≥18 years of age with de novo small vessel lesions (2.0–2.75 mm diameter) and stable angina, documented ischemia (non-ACS) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were recruited for this registry. There were no patient exclusion criteria except those associated with contraindications for anti-platelet therapy.

Procedural approach

It was the purpose of this registry to treat de novo lesions with the PCB catheter only without additional stent implantations, according to the German Consensus Group recommendations (Kleber et al. 2011). Predilatation with an uncoated balloon catheter according to the above mentioned recommendation was mandatory (Kleber et al. 2011). In cases of severe dissections or unsatisfactory results post-PCB, the implantation of a BMS was recommended and left to the discretion of the interventionalist.

Vascular access was from the femoral or radial route with recommended diagnostic catheter of at least 5 French in diameter. Due to the ‘all-comers’ nature of this registry, efforts were made to not interfere with established national co-medication recommendations. Dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) with acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) and an ADP receptor inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) was recommended, but at the discretion of the treating physician. An injectable anticoagulant was advised on the basis of local routines in the participating catheterisation laboratories.

Postprocedural medication

An ADP receptor antagonist (clopidogrel 75 mg/day, prasugrel 10 mg/day or ticagrelor 180 mg/day) was recommended for either 1, 3–6 or 12 months together with aspirin 100–325 mg/day at the discretion of the treating physician.

Definitions

MACE included TLR, myocardial revascularisation, and death of cardiac or unknown origin. MI was diagnosed with corresponding ECG changes and/or cardiac enzyme elevations according to each institution’s routine diagnostic algorithms.

End points

Clinically driven TLR (either by re-do PCI or CABG) at 9 months post procedure was the primary end point. Secondary end points were procedural success rate, definite acute/sub-acute vessel thrombosis rates based on the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria (Cutlip et al. 2007) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as the composite of TLR, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction.

Data collection

Baseline and clinical follow-up data were collected through a web based data acquisition system between June 2011 and December 2012. Follow up data were typically collected during routine visits with the treating physician. National principal investigators (one per country) were responsible for the accuracy of their datasets. Source data verification was done when the routinely performed web based plausibility checks indicated discrepancies.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were evaluated with the χ2 test. Continuous variables were typically compared with the unpaired two-tailed Student’s t test. In parameters with Gaussian distributions, samples were described using the mean and the SD. SPSS V.20.0 (IBM, Munich, Germany) was used for all analyses at a significance level α of 0.05.

Results

Patients demographics and presentation

A total of 471 PCB angioplasties were performed in 447 patients of which 113 (25 %) were ACS (STEMI/NSTEMI). A small proportion of patients (7.2 %) had bail-out BMS stenting. Patients baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. All clinical characteristics were similar in the ACS and non-ACS groups except for hyperlipidaemia and previous PCI where the non-ACS group had higher rates for both.
Table 1

Patient demographics and presentations

Variable

All patients

non ACS

ACS

p value

Number of patients

447

334

113

Number of lesions

471

365

106

Age (years)

66.1 ± 10.9

66.2 ± 10.2

65.9 ± 12.9

0.761

Male gender

324 (72.5 %)

247 (72.2 %)

77 (73.3 %)

0.824

Diabetes

164 (36.7 %)

128 (37.4 %)

36 (34.3 %)

0.559

Hypertension

360 (80.5 %)

281 (82.2 %)

79 (75.2 %)

0.117

Hyperlipidemia

308 (68.9 %)

244 (71.3 %)

64 (61.0 %)

0.044

History of smoking

169 (37.8 %)

128 (37.4 %)

41 (39.0 %)

0.765

Renal insufficiency

44 (9.8 %)

32 (9.4 %)

12 (11.4 %)

0.533

Prior PCI

238 (53.2 %)

193 (56.4 %)

45 (42.9 %)

0.015

Prior CABG

44 (9.8 %)

34 (9.9 %)

10 (9.5 %)

0.900

Atrial fibrillation

41 (9.2 %)

31 (9.1 %)

10 (9.5 %)

0.887

Age group ≥75 year

113 (25.3 %)

84 (24.6 %)

29 (27.6 %)

0.528

STEMI

41 (9.2 %)

0 (0.0 %)

41 (39.0 %)

NSTEMI

64 (14.3 %)

0 (0.0 %)

64 (61.0 %)

PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG coronary artery bypass graft, STEMI ST-elevation myocardial infarction, NSTEMI non-ST elevation myocardial infarction

Lesion characteristics and procedural data

The mean vessel diameter for the ACS and non-ACS group were 2.15 ± 0.36 and 2.14 ± 0.35 respectively. Similar mean lesion length of around 15.5 mm was recorded in both groups. The LAD was the most common target vessel for both the ACS and non-ACS group. The distribution of coronary arteries treated were similar for both groups. In terms of lesion characteristics, the ACS group had more acute total occlusion (15.1 vs 7.4 %, p = 0.015) and higher thrombus burden rate (13.2 vs 0.3 %, p = 0.001). The degree of stenosis is also higher in the ACS group (88.5 vs 84.5 %, p = 0.001). Apart from the above, both ACS and non-ACS group have no significant difference in coronary artery complexity. Additional stenting was required in 9.3 % ACS and 6.5 % non-ACS, p = 0.308. Reasons for additional stenting were target lesion related dissection (57.6 %) or non-target lesion stenosis (41.2 %).

Periprocedure anti-platelet therapy

All patients were on aspirin. Clopidogrel was the most common second anti-platelet drug followed by prasugrel, ticagrelor and ticlopidine. A small minority of patients were on single antiplatelet aspirin (5.7 % ACS and 4.7 % non-ACS). No significant difference in the ACS and non-ACS groups in terms of periprocedural anti-platelet therapy (Tables 2, 3, 4).
Table 2

Lesion characteristics and procedural data in ACS and non-ACS patients

Variable

All patients

Non ACS

ACS

p value

Number of lesions

471

353

118

Target vessel

 LAD

193 (41.0 %)

154 (42.2 %)

39 (36.8 %)

0.128

 LCX

126 (26.8 %)

91 (24.9 %)

35 (33.0 %)

 

 RCA

94 (20.0 %)

69 (18.9 %)

25 (23.6 %)

 

 Ramus intermedius

19 (4.0 %)

17 (4.7 %)

2 (1.9 %)

 

 Other

39 (8.9 %)

34 (9.3 %)

5 (4.7 %)

 

Lesion characteristics

 Total occlusion

43 (9.1 %)

27 (7.4 %)

16 (15.1 %)

0.015

 Chronic total occlusion

16 (3.4 %)

13 (3.6 %)

3 (2.8 %)

0.714

 Thrombus burden

15 (3.2 %)

1 (0.3 %)

14 (13.2 %)

<0.001

 Diffuse vessel disease

200 (57.5 %)

156 (42.7 %)

44 (41.5 %)

0.822

 Calcification

112 (23.8 %)

83 (22.7 %)

29 (27.4 %)

0.325

 Vein graft

9 (1.9 %)

8 (2.2 %)

1 (0.9 %)

0.409

 Ostial lesion

48 (10.2 %)

35 (9.6 %)

13 (12.3 %)

0.423

 Bifurcation lesion

45 (9.6 %)

35 (9.6 %)

10 (9.4 %)

0.962

 Severe tortuosity

45 (9.6 %)

32 (8.8 %)

13 (12.3 %)

0.281

 AHA/ACC type B2/C lesion

182 (38.6 %)

133 (36.4 %)

49 (46.2 %)

0.068

 Reference diameter (mm)

2.14 ± 0.35

2.14 ± 0.35

2.15 ± 0.36

0.973

 Lesion length

15.5 ± 7.0

15.5 ± 7.3

15.6 ± 5.9

0.926

 Degree of stenosis (%)

85.3 ± 11.2

84.5 ± 11.4

88.5 ± 10.2

0.001

Procedural data

 Predilation device diameter (mm)

2.02 ± 0.25

2.01 ± 0.24

2.04 ± 0.29

0.303

 Predilatation device length (mm)

15.6 ± 4.5

15.7 ± 4.6

15.5 ± 4.3

0.655

 Predilatation device pressure (atm)

11.8 ± 3.1

11.8 ± 3.2

11.7 ± 3.1

0.941

 DEBs used

478

371

107

 DEBs per patient

1.07 ± 0.29

1.08 ± 0.32

1.03 ± 0.17

0.114

 DEB diameter (mm)

2.33 ± 0.31

2.32 ± 0.30

2.37 ± 0.32

0.138

 DEB length (mm)

19.2 ± 4.5

19.2 ± 4.5

18.8 ± 4.3

0.425

 DEB inflation pressure (atm)

11.0 ± 3.4

10.9 ± 2.8

11.3 ± 4.9

0.352

 DEB inflation time (s)

48.5 ± 15.9

48.5 ± 16.0

48.6 ± 15.6

0.982

 Additional stent

34 (7.2 %)

24 (6.5 %)

10 (9.3 %)

0.308

 Overall technical success per used device (n = 478)

473 (99.0 %)

368 (99.2 %)

105 (98.1 %)

0.342

LAD left anterior descending artery, LCX left circumflex artery, RCA right coronary artery, AHA/ACC American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, DEB drug eluting balloon

Table 3

Peri-procedural antiplatelet therapy in ACS and non-ACS patients

Variable

All patients

Non ACS

ACS

p value

Aspirin

447 (100 %)

334 (100 %)

113 (100 %)

 Clopidogrel

364 (81.4 %)

277 (81.0 %)

87 (82.9 %)

0.792

 Prasugrel

41 (9.2 %)

32 (9.4 %)

9 (8.6 %)

 

 Ticagrelor

8 (1.8 %)

6 (1.8 %)

2 (1.9 %)

 

 Ticlopidine

4 (0.9 %)

4 (1.2 %)

0 (0.0 %)

 

Aspirin + vitamin K antagonists

9 (2.0 %)

8 (2.3 %)

1 (1.0 %)

 

Aspirin only

21 (4.7 %)

15 (4.4 %)

6 (5.7 %)

 

GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors

10 (2.2 %)

8 (2.3 %)

2 (1.9 %)

0.792

GP IIb/IIIA glycoprotein IIb/IIIa

Table 4

Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy during follow-up in ACS and non-ACS patients

Variable

All patients

Non ACS

ACS

p value

Number of patients

447

334

113

4 weeks aspirin 100 mg + clopidogrel

267 (59.7 %)

207 (60.5 %)

60 (57.1 %)

0.385

3 months aspirin 100 mg + clopidogrel

5 (1.2 %)

5 (1.5 %)

0 (0.0 %)

 

6–12 months aspirin 100 mg + clopidogrel

68 (15.2 %)

52 (15.2 %)

16 (15.2 %)

 

12 months aspirin 100 mg + clopidogrel

70 (15.7 %)

47 (13.7 %)

23 (21.9 %)

 

Aspirin 100 mg + clopidogrel life long

2 (0.4 %)

2 (0.6 %)

0 (0.0 %)

 

12 months aspirin 100 mg + prasugrel

3 (0.7 %)

2 (0.6 %)

1 (1.0 %)

 

12 months aspirin 100 mg + ticagrelor

3 (0.7 %)

2 (0.6 %)

1 (1.0 %)

 

Unknown

29 (6.5 %)

24 (7.0 %)

5 (4.8 %)

 

Duration of dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) during follow up

More than half of the patients had 4 weeks of aspirin/clopidogrel (57.1 % ACS, 60.5 % non-ACS). No significant difference between the ACS and non-ACS groups with regards to the duration and types of DAPT during follow up.

Clinical outcome

Table 5 illustrates the clinical outcome of the patients. The primary end-point of 9 months TLR were 1.2 % ACS versus 4.3 % non-ACS (p = 0.180). Overall, the MACE rate at 9 months was 4.7 % for the entire registry. MACE rates were 0 % at 30-day and 3.6 % at 9 months in the ACS group. The rates were lower as compared to the non-ACS group, but were not significantly different. No cases of target lesion/vessel or non-target vessel thrombosis reported in the ACS group.
Table 5

Clinical outcomes in patient populations in ACS and non-ACS patients

Variable

All patients

Non ACS

ACS

p value

Number of patients

447

334

113

Patients with clinical follow-up

384 (85.9 %)

301 (90.3 %)

83 (73.5 %)

0.021

Follow-up time (months)

9.4 ± 1.7

9.5 ± 1.7

9.4 ± 1.6

0.875

30-day MACE

1 (0.3 %)

1 (0.3 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0.599

30-day TLR

1 (0.3 %)

1 (0.3 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0.599

30-day MI

1 (0.3 %)

1 (0.3 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0.599

30-day cardiac death

0 (0.0 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0 (0.0 %)

9-month MACE

18 (4.7 %)

15 (5.0 %)

3 (3.6 %)

0.601

9-month TLR

14 (3.6 %)

13 (4.3 %)

1 (1.2 %)

0.180

9-month MI

7 (1.8 %)

4 (1.3 %)

3 (3.6 %)

0.168

9-month cardiac death

0 (0.0 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0 (0.0 %)

9-month vessel thrombosis

3 (0.8 %)

3 (1.1 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0.356

 Target lesion

0 (0.0 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0 (0.0 %)

 Target vessel

2 (0.5 %)

2 (0.7 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0.457

 Non-target vessel

1 (0.3 %)

1 (0.3 %)

0 (0.0 %)

0.599

MACE major adverse cardiac events, TLR target lesion revascularisation, MI myocardial infarction

Discussion

The definition of small vessel from the literature varies. For our registry, we took the cut-off point of 2.75 mm or less as small vessel. From coronary revascularisation point of view, small vessel PCIs make up a significant portion constituting to about 35–45 % of all PCIs (Zeymer and Scheller 2011). PCI with stenting in small vessels remains challenging as the outcome is poorer compared to PCI of larger vessels. Small vessels have less tolerance to neointimal proliferation post stent implantation (Hausleiter et al. 2002; Agostoni et al. 2005). The risk of ISR in small vessels even with the introduction of DES stents is still considered significant (Meier et al. 2006; Togni et al. 2007). This is in addition to the already known complication of stent thrombosis.

PCB angioplasty in small vessels was first reported in 2010 which showed a TLR rate of 4.9 % in PCB only patients (n = 73) with reference diameter of 2.36 ± 0.18 mm and lesion lengths of 11.3 ± 4.3 mm (Unverdoben et al. 2010). After the initial failure of PICCOLETTO study trial (Cortese et al. 2010) to show a non-inferiority of PCB versus DES, came a larger randomised trial comparing PCB and DES in small vessel de novo lesions (BELLO study) (Latib et al. 2012). BELLO study comprising 182 patients, showed superiority of PCB over TAXUS stents in terms of late lumen loss (LLL) and similar angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularisation and MACE rates at 6 months. Patients from the BELLO study were then followed up for 2 years and showed better TLR rates (compared to PES TAXUS) at 6 months (4.4 vs 7.6 %), 1 year (6.7 vs 12.1 %) and 2 years (6.8 vs 12.1 %) (Naganuma et al. 2015).

Stent implantation is considered the standard and well established treatment for ACS (Windecker et al. 2014) to improve clinical outcome. However PCI in ACS in small vessels is not spared from the issue of high ISR rate and stent thrombosis. Evidence of PCB specifically in ACS is still sparse. Besic et al. (2015) reported a significantly lower LLL of PCB + BMS combination compared to BMS alone at 6 months but no significant difference in MACE and binary LLL and ISR were noted.

There is now rather convincing data on the efficacy and safety of PCB in small vessels de novo lesions in general (Zeymer et al. 2014). However its use in ACS in particular is still unclear. Ho et al. (2015) reported MACE rate of 4.5 % in PCB primary angioplasty of STEMI at 30-day follow up. Our study shows the outcome of PCB in ACS and non-ACS is comparably similar in small vessel de novo lesions. MACE rate at 30-days and 9-months follow up showed a better trend in ACS than the non-ACS group. MACE at 30 days is 0.3 % non-ACS versus 0 % ACS and 9-months MACE is 5.0 % non-ACS versus 3.6 % ACS. In comparison to other small vessel de novo lesion studies, TLR at 9-months follow up was reported as 3.6 % (PCB only) and 4.0 % (PCB + BMS) (Zeymer et al. 2014) and 1 % (PCB only) and 2.4 % (PCB + BMS) (Wohrle et al. 2012). The mean vessel diameter difference for the two above studies might explain the lower rate of TLR.

Conclusion

The use of PCB in ACS of small vessel de novo lesion is associated with a low TLR/MACE rate comparable to small vessel PCB angioplasty in general. This suggests PCB angioplasty in ACS is a feasible alternative to stent implantation in ACS.

Study limitation

Since the purpose of this observational study was the documentation of PCB angioplasty in the clinical routine, event underreporting may have occured. In this context, the procedural details could have been specified in more detail as well. For instance in case of thrombus burden the type of the aspiration device would have been highly desirable. Furthermore, in the case of PCB angioplasty one needs to point out that the learning curve to treat small lesions with PCB only requires positive clinical feedback of each investigator. This entails a learning curve to accept angiographically ‘unpleasing’ results for the benefit of having no implant in a small vessel. However, due to the level of each investigator’s experience a selection bias could not be ruled out in this assessment.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

Manuscript preparation and main idea: ASMZ. Principal site investigator for the registry: UZ, MS, MF. Data organisation and statistical analysis: MW, MB. Manuscript write up: MDI, IZA. Scientific and academic review of the manuscript: WAWA. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Denny Herberger (Medical Scientific Affairs, B. Braun Vascular Systems) for his valuable logistic support.

Competing interests

Dr. Mathhias Waliszewski and Dr. Michael Boxberger are from the B. Braun’s Medical Scientific Affairs, Berlin Germany.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patients for publication of this manuscript. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Cardiology Unit, University Malaya Medical Centre
(2)
Klinikum der Stadt Ludwigshafen am Rhein
(3)
Medical Scientific Affairs, B. Braun Melsungen AG
(4)
Klinik fur Kardiologie, Marien Hospital Marl
(5)
Klinik fur Innere Medizin I, Universitatsklinikum Jena

References

  1. Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Gasparini GL, Anselmi M, Morando G, Turri M et al (2005) Is bare-metalstenting superior to balloon angioplasty for small vessel coronary arterydisease? Evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J 26:881–889View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Akiyama T, Moussa I, Reimers B (1998) Angiographic and clinical outcome following coronary stenting of small vessels a comparison with coronary stenting of large vessels. J Am Coll Cardiol 32:1610–1618View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali RM, Degenhardt R, Zambahari R, Tresukosol D, Ahmad WA, Hb Kamar et al (2011) Paclitaxel-eluting balloon angioplasty and cobalt-chromium stents versus conventional angioplasty and paclitaxel eluting stents in the treatment of native coronary artery stenoses in patients with diabetes mellitus. Eurointervention 7(suppl k):K61–K65Google Scholar
  4. Besic KM, Strozzi M, Margetic E, Bulum J, Kolaric B (2015) Drug-eluting balloons in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. J Cardiol 65(3):203–207View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne RA, Neumann J, Mehilli J, Pinieck S, Wolff B, Tiroch K et al (2013) Paclitaxel eluting balloons, paclitaxel eluting stents and balloon angioplasty in patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent (ISAR-DESIRE 3): a randomised, open label trial. Lancet 381:461–467View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortese B, Micheli A, Picchi A, Coppolaro A, Bandinelli L, Severi S et al (2010) PICCOLETO Study prospective randomised clinical trial. The stent during PCI of small coronary vessels, a paclitaxel-coated balloon versus drug eluting. Heart 96:1291–1296View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutlip D, Windecker S, Mehran R (2007) Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 115:2344–2351View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Harbara S, Mitsudo K, Kadota K, Goto T, Fujii S, Yamamoto H et al (2011) Effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheter in patients with sirolimus-eluting stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 4:149–154View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Hausleiter J, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dotzer F, Schühlen H, Dirschinger J et al (2002) Comparative analysis of stentplacement versus balloon angioplasty in small coronary arteries withlong narrowings (the Intracoronary Stenting or Angioplasty for Restenosis Reduction in Small Arteries [ISAR-SMART] Trial). Am J Cardiol 89:58–60View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ho HH, Tan J, Ooi YW, Loh KK, Aung TH, Yin NT et al (2015) Preliminary experience with drug-coated balloon anggiopasty in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. World J Cardiol 7(6):311–314View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Kasaoka A, Tobis JM, Akiyama T (1998) Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound predictors of in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 32:1630–1635View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Kleber FX, Mathey DG, Rittger H, Scheller B, German Drug-eluting Balloon Consensus Group (2011) How to use the drug-eluting balloon: recommendations by the German consensus group. Eurointervention 7(suppl K):K125-8Google Scholar
  13. Latib A, Colombo A, Castriota F, Micari A, Cremonesi A, De Felice F et al (2012) A randomised multicenter study comparing a paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon with a paclitaxel eluting stent in small coronary vessels: the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss optimization) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:2473–2480View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Meier B, Sousa E, Guagliumi G, Van den Branden F, Grenadier E, Windecker S et al (2006) Sirolimus eluting stents in small vessels. Am Heart J 151:1019View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Naganuma T, Latib A, Squeglia GA, Menozzi A, Castriota F, Micari A et al (2015) A 2-year follow-up of a randomized multicenter study comparing a paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in small coronary vessels the BELLO study. Int J Cardiol 184:17–21View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Scheller B, Herlein C, Bocksch W et al (2006) Treatment of in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter. N Eng J Med 355:2113–2124View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Scheller B, Herlein C, Bocksch W, Rutsch W, Haghi D, Dietz U et al (2008) Two year follow-up after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter. Clin Res Cardiol 97:773–781View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Scheller B, Clever YP, Kelsch B, Herlein C, Bocksch W, Rutsch W et al (2012) Long term follow up after treatment of in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 5(3):323–330View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Togni M, Eber S, Widmer J, Billinger M, Wenaweser P, Cook S et al (2007) Impact of vessel size on outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 50:1123–1131View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Unverdoben M, Kleber FX, Heuer H, Figulla HR, Vallbracht C, Leschke M et al (2010) Treatment of small coronary arteries with a paclitaxel balloon catheter. Clin Res Cardiol 99(3):165–174View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J et al (2014) 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 35:2541–2619View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Wohrle J, Zadura M, Mobius-Winkler S, Leschke M, Opitz C, Ahmed W et al (2012) SeQuent please world wide registry: clinical results of SeQuent please paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty in a large-scale, prospective registry study. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:1733–1738View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Zeymer U, Scheller B (2011) PCI in small vessels: the case for a drug-coated balloon based intervention. Eurointervention 7(Suppl K):K57–K60View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Zeymer U, Waliszewski M, Spiecker M, Gastmann O, Ferrari B, Ferrari M et al (2014) Prospective ‘real world’ registry for the use of ‘PCB only’ strategy in small vessel de novo lesions. Heart 100:311–316View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Mahmood Zuhdi et al. 2016