Procedural optimization of drug‐coated balloons in the treatment of coronary artery disease

• Published in: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions Vol. 98; no. 1; pp. E43 - E52
• Main Authors: Lee, Hak Seung, Kang, Jeehoon, Park, Kyung Woo, Ki, You‐Jeong, Chang, Mineok, Han, Jung‐Kyu, Yang, Han‐Mo, Kang, Hyun‐Jae, Koo, Bon‐Kwon, Kim, Hyo‐Soo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.07.2021; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Balloon treatment; Cardiovascular disease; Coronary artery; coronary artery disease; Coronary vessels; drug‐coated balloon; Heart diseases; Implants; Lesions; Optimization; Patients; percutaneous coronary intervention; Stenosis; Stents; coronary artery disease; drug-coated balloon; percutaneous coronary intervention
• ISSN: 1522-1946; 1522-726X
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29492

Objectives This study aimed to investigate the effects of procedural optimization on the clinical outcomes of using the drug‐coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Backgrounds Procedural optimization is considered an essential step in DCB treatment. Methods Data of consecutive patients who underwent DCB treatment at the Seoul National University Hospital were collected. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) at 2 years. Results Among 259 patients (309 lesions), TLF was observed in 31 (12.0%) patients. The following were modifiable procedural factors: residual percent diameter stenosis (%DS) after lesion preparation; DCB‐to‐vessel/stent ratio; time‐delay to inflation; and total DCB inflation time. The best cutoff values for these parameters were 20%, 0.95, 25, and 60 s, respectively. The patients were classified based on the number of procedural factors that satisfied adequate criteria. TLF was observed in 7.3% in the fully optimized group, 9.1% in the partially optimized group, and 34.1% in the nonoptimized group over 2 years (p < .001). The adequacy of the four factors for DCB optimization was an independent predictor of TLF (adjusted hazards ratio for each unmet criteria for optimization, 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.74–2.36, p < .001). Conclusion The optimization of the four procedural factors could reduce TLF following DCB treatment.