Comparison of two drug-eluting balloons: a report from the SCAAR registry.
(2012) In EuroIntervention 8(4). p.444-449- Abstract
- Aims:
Recently, drug-eluting balloons have received a guideline class IIa recommendation in the treatment of in-stent restenosis after bare metal stent implantation. It is not known if different balloons perform equally. Using a large real world registry, restenosis frequency was reported for two drug-eluting balloons.
Methods and results:
From April 2009 until September 2011, 1,129 patients were treated with paclitaxel-eluting balloons in Sweden. Mean follow-up was 328±210 days. Nine hundred and nineteen patients were treated with a balloon using a contrast agent as a drug-carrier and 217 with a balloon without a contrast agent as a drug-carrier. The indications were predominantly de novo (45.4%) or... (More) - Aims:
Recently, drug-eluting balloons have received a guideline class IIa recommendation in the treatment of in-stent restenosis after bare metal stent implantation. It is not known if different balloons perform equally. Using a large real world registry, restenosis frequency was reported for two drug-eluting balloons.
Methods and results:
From April 2009 until September 2011, 1,129 patients were treated with paclitaxel-eluting balloons in Sweden. Mean follow-up was 328±210 days. Nine hundred and nineteen patients were treated with a balloon using a contrast agent as a drug-carrier and 217 with a balloon without a contrast agent as a drug-carrier. The indications were predominantly de novo (45.4%) or in-stent restenotic (51.8%) lesions. The overall incidence of restenosis at six months was 3.4% with the paclitaxel balloon using a contrast agent as carrier, compared with 12.5% with the paclitaxel-eluting balloon without a carrier (risk ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.26-0.68]). After adjusting for indications, lesion types and procedural factors, the risk ratio was 0.39; 95% CI (0.24-0.65).
Conclusions:
This observational study from a large real world population shows a major difference between two paclitaxel-eluting balloons. The findings suggest that there are no class effects for drug-eluting balloons and factors other than the drug may be important for the clinical effect. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/3047260
- author
- Bondesson, Per ; Lagerqvist, Bo ; James, Stefan K ; Olivecrona, Göran LU ; Venetsanos, Dimitrios and Harnek, Jan LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2012
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- EuroIntervention
- volume
- 8
- issue
- 4
- pages
- 444 - 449
- publisher
- Société Europa Edition
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000309436400008
- pmid:22917727
- scopus:84871269683
- pmid:22917727
- ISSN
- 1969-6213
- DOI
- 10.4244/EIJV8I4A70
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 1376ad91-241c-4a20-8170-103c2c33e254 (old id 3047260)
- alternative location
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22917727?dopt=Abstract
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 06:58:26
- date last changed
- 2022-03-07 19:41:54
@article{1376ad91-241c-4a20-8170-103c2c33e254, abstract = {{Aims: <br/><br> Recently, drug-eluting balloons have received a guideline class IIa recommendation in the treatment of in-stent restenosis after bare metal stent implantation. It is not known if different balloons perform equally. Using a large real world registry, restenosis frequency was reported for two drug-eluting balloons. <br/><br> <br/><br> Methods and results: <br/><br> From April 2009 until September 2011, 1,129 patients were treated with paclitaxel-eluting balloons in Sweden. Mean follow-up was 328±210 days. Nine hundred and nineteen patients were treated with a balloon using a contrast agent as a drug-carrier and 217 with a balloon without a contrast agent as a drug-carrier. The indications were predominantly de novo (45.4%) or in-stent restenotic (51.8%) lesions. The overall incidence of restenosis at six months was 3.4% with the paclitaxel balloon using a contrast agent as carrier, compared with 12.5% with the paclitaxel-eluting balloon without a carrier (risk ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.26-0.68]). After adjusting for indications, lesion types and procedural factors, the risk ratio was 0.39; 95% CI (0.24-0.65). <br/><br> <br/><br> Conclusions: <br/><br> This observational study from a large real world population shows a major difference between two paclitaxel-eluting balloons. The findings suggest that there are no class effects for drug-eluting balloons and factors other than the drug may be important for the clinical effect.}}, author = {{Bondesson, Per and Lagerqvist, Bo and James, Stefan K and Olivecrona, Göran and Venetsanos, Dimitrios and Harnek, Jan}}, issn = {{1969-6213}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{4}}, pages = {{444--449}}, publisher = {{Société Europa Edition}}, series = {{EuroIntervention}}, title = {{Comparison of two drug-eluting balloons: a report from the SCAAR registry.}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJV8I4A70}}, doi = {{10.4244/EIJV8I4A70}}, volume = {{8}}, year = {{2012}}, }