Lots of interesting abstracts and cases were submitted for TCTAP & AP VALVES 2020 Virtual. Below are accepted ones after thoroughly reviewed by our official reviewers. Don¡¯t miss the opportunity to explore your knowledge and interact with authors as well as virtual participants by sharing your opinion!
* The E-Science Station is well-optimized for PC.
We highly recommend you use a desktop computer or laptop to browse E-posters.
ABS20191105_0006
| Drug-Eluting Balloons | |
| Clinical Outcome at 6th Month Between Paclitaxel Coated Balloon Versus Sirolimus Coated Balloon in De-Novo Coronary Lesions | |
| Sandeep Basavarajaiah1 | |
| University Hospital Birmingham, United Kingdom1 | |
|
Background:
Drug coated balloons (DCB) are being increasingly used in de novo coronary lesions especially in small vessel disease. However, all the available data are from Paclitaxel coated balloons (PCB) with no published data on Sirolimus coated balloons (SCB), which is relatively a new concept. We embarked on SCB in our practice since April 2018 and in this study, we compare short-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with PCB versus SCB for de novo coronary lesions.
|
|
|
Methods:
We included all patients treated with PCB (Sequent Please, B Braun, Germany and In-pact Falcon, Medtronic, USA) between August 2016-January 2018 and those treated with SCB (Magic Touch, Concept Medical Limited, India) between April 2018-October 2018. Since SCB is a relatively new concept and we were comparing the two groups from different years, we obtained follow-up for all patients including PCB for 9-months and events occurring after 9-months were censored for both the groups. Endpoints included cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization and MACE (combination of cardiac death, target vessel MI and target vessel revascularization).
|
|
|
Results:
During the study period; 223-patients (303-lesions) were treated with PCB and 124-patients (153-lesions) with SCB. There were some differences in the demographic characteristics between the two group. In regards to procedural characteristics, mean diameter of DCB was smaller in SCB compared to PCB (2.51 vs. 2.46 mm; p=0.2) and mean length was longer in SCB compared to PCB (23.5 mm vs. 26 mm; p=0.001). Clinical outcomes at 9-months between PCB and SCB were; cardiac death (n=10; 4.5% vs. 2; 2%: p=1.6), TVMI (n=3; 1% vs. 3; 2.4%: p=0.7), TLR (n=10; 3.3% vs. 10; 6.5%: p=0.12), TVR (n=14; 4.6% vs. 11; 7.2%: p=0.3) and MACE (n=17; 7.6% vs. 11; 8.9%: p=1).
|
|
|
Conclusion:
In this study of a relatively small number of patients treated with SCB when compared with those treated with PCB, the short-term follow-up at 9-months seems encouraging for SCB as the outcomes are comparable with PCB group. We certainly need more patients with longer follow-up to confirm this and we will be able to provide this at the meeting.
|
|
0