Drug-coated Balloon Group Research Articles

Six-Month Results From the Initial Randomized Study of the Ranger Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon in the Femoropopliteal Segment

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of the Ranger paclitaxel-coated balloon vs uncoated balloon angioplasty for femoropopliteal lesions. Methods: Between January 2014 and October 2015, the prospective, randomized RANGER SFA study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02013193) enrolled 105 patients with symptomatic lower limb ischemia (Rutherford category 2–4) and stenotic lesions in the nonstented femoropopliteal segment at 10 European centers. Seventy-one patients (mean age 68±8 years; 53 men) were enrolled in the Ranger drug-coated balloon (DCB) arm and 34 patients (mean age 67±9 years; 23 men) were assigned to the control group. Six-month analysis included angiographic late lumen loss and safety and clinical outcomes assessments. Results: Baseline characteristics of the DCB and control groups were similar, as were lesion lengths (68±46 vs 60±48 mm; p=0.731), severity of calcification (p=0.236), and the prevalence of occlusions (34% vs 34%; p>0.999). At 6 months, late lumen loss was significantly less for the DCB group vs controls (–0.16±0.99 vs 0.76±1.4; p=0.002). The DCB group had significantly greater freedom from binary restenosis (92% vs 64%; p=0.005) and primary patency rates (87% vs 60%; p=0.014). Target lesion revascularization rates were 5.6% in the DCB group and 12% in the control group (p=0.475). No target limb amputations or device-related deaths occurred in either group. Conclusion: Six-month results suggest that Ranger DCB treatment effectively inhibited restenosis in symptomatic femoropopliteal disease, resulting in improved vessel patency and a low revascularization rate in the short term compared with uncoated balloon angioplasty.

Efficacy of drug-coated balloon and common balloon for treatment of superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery arteriosclerosis obliterans: prospective randomized controlled triac

To compared the efficacy of drug-coated balloon and common balloon for treatment of superficial femoral artery and popliteal artery occlusive disease. Forty-six patients were admitted for ipsilateral single or multiple superficial femoral artery and/or popliteal artery lesions (between 3 and 15 cm stenosis or occlusion), Rutherford grades 2 to 5, with or without other accompanying diseases in the Department of Interventional Vascular Therapy of the First Hospital of Nanjing between September, 2015 and December, 2016. The patients were randomly assigned into drug-coated balloon (DCB) group (n=23) and common balloon (CB) group (n=23). None of the patients had stent restenosis, aneurysms, acute thrombosis, pregnancy, life expectancy less than 1 year, or below-the-knee artery occlusion. The late lumen loss (LLL), improvement of the ankle brachial index (ABI), improvement of Rutherford grade, incidence of restenosis, thrombosis rate and amputation rate were compared between the two groups at 6 months after treatment. The two groups of patients were comparable for general conditions, risk factors, and characteristics of the compromised vessels (P>0.05). Six months after treatment, the patients in DCB group showed significantly smaller LLL, more obvious improvement of the ABI and Rutherford grade, and lower restenosis rate and thrombosis rate than those in CB group (P<0.05). The amputation rates were similar between the two groups (P>0.05). DCB shows obvious advantages over common balloon for treatment of superficial artery and popliteal artery arteriosclerosis obliterans in that it more effectively reduces LLL, restenosis rate and thrombosis rate and improves the ABI and Rutherford grade at 6 months after the treatment.

A propensity score matched comparative study between paclitaxel‐coated balloon and everolimus‐eluting stents for the treatment of small coronary vessels

To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of paclitaxel drug-coated-balloons (DCB) and everolimus-eluting-stents (EES) following the treatment of de novo small vessel coronary artery disease. It is currently unclear whether treatment of de novo small vessel coronary disease with DCB is comparable to second generation drug-eluting stents, which are the current standard of care. The present study enrolled 90 patients with small vessel coronary disease from the DCB treatment arm of the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) trial and 2,000 patients treated with EES at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, yielding a total of 181 patients: 90 patients with 94 lesions receiving DCB and 91 patients with 94 lesions receiving EES. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. After propensity score matching, baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. The cumulative MACE rate at 1-year was 12.2% with DCB and 15.4% with EES (P = 0.538). Patients in the DCB group had similar TLR rates as compared to EES over the same interval (4.4% vs. 5.6%; P = 0.720). There were no cases of definite or probable stent or vessel thrombosis. The use of paclitaxel-DCB appears to be associated with similar clinical outcomes when compared to second-generation-EES in small coronary artery disease. The findings of this study should be confirmed with larger prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Clinical value of drug-coated balloon angioplasty for de novo lesions in patients with coronary artery disease

BackgroundDespite the low restenosis rates of drug-eluting stents (DES), several problems remain, including stent thrombosis, stent fracture, and neo-atherosclerosis. ‘Stent-less’ (balloon alone) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still being used, and several clinical trials have supported the efficacy of DCB. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease. MethodsWe enrolled 60 consecutive patients who had been given elective PCI between May 2014 and June 2015. They were randomly assigned to a ‘stent-less’ group (n=30) and a ‘stent’ group (n=30). Twenty-seven patients were treated with DCB alone and 33 with DES, and then evaluated for target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate and by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) eight months later. ResultsTLR rates were similar in the two groups (DCB; 0.0%, DES; 6.1%, P=0.169). In the QCA analysis, minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and acute gain were significantly smaller in the DCB group than in the DES group immediately after PCI (2.36±0.46 vs 2.64±0.37, P=0.011, and 1.63±0.41 vs 2.08±0.37, P<0.0001, respectively). Eight months after PCI, however, there was no significant difference in MLD or late lumen loss between the two groups. ConclusionsA ‘stent-less’ PCI using DCB could be useful even in the DES era. After ‘stent-less’ PCI, antiplatelet agents might be reduced or discontinued more safely than after DES implantation.

German Center Subanalysis of the LEVANT 2 Global Randomized Study of the Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon in the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Occlusive Disease

Purpose: To report a subanalysis of the German centers enrolling patients in the prospective, global, multicenter, randomized LEVANT 2 pivotal trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01412541) of the Lutonix drug-coated balloon (DCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease. Methods: Among the 476 patients in LEVANT 2, 126 patients (mean age 67.1±9.6 years; 79 men) were enrolled at the 8 participating German sites between August 2011 and July 2012 and were randomized 2:1 to treatment with the Lutonix DCB (n=83) vs an uncoated balloon during percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA, n=43). All patients had intermittent claudication or rest pain (Rutherford categories 2–4). Average lesion length was 58 mm and average treated length was 100 mm. Severe calcification was present in 11% of lesions, and 23% were total occlusions. The efficacy outcome was primary patency at 12 months, and the safety outcome was 12-month freedom from a composite of perioperative death, index limb–related death, amputation (below or above the ankle), and index limb revascularization. Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse events, and functional outcomes. Results: Demographic, clinical, and lesion characteristics were matched between Lutonix DCB and PTA groups, as were the final percent diameter stenosis (19%) and procedure success (91%). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 12-month primary patency rate was 80% vs 58% (p=0.015) and the composite safety endpoint rate was 94% vs 72% (p=0.001), respectively. Freedom from TLR was higher for DCBs (96%) vs PTA (82%, p=0.012). Major adverse events were similar for both groups. The benefit favoring DCB over PTA was observed in German men and women. Compared to the non-German LEVANT 2 cohort, there was a shorter time between insertion and inflation of treatment balloons (21.8 vs 39.5 seconds, p<0.001) in the German cohort. Balloons were inflated to higher pressures (9.0 vs 7.7 atm, p<0.001) but for a shorter period of time (130 vs 167 seconds, p<0.001), and although treated lesions in the German cohort had a higher baseline stenosis, final postprocedure diameter stenosis was lower (19% vs 22%, p=0.04) than in the non-German patients. Conclusion: Superiority of DCB over PTA in the German cohort of LEVANT 2 was demonstrated for primary patency, composite safety, and freedom from TLR. The benefit of DCB was also consistent for both genders. Geographic or regional differences in procedural variables may account for the different outcomes between the German and non-German cohorts.

Durability of Treatment Effect Using a Drug-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal Lesions: 24-Month Results of IN.PACT SFA

BackgroundEvidence from large, randomized, controlled peripheral artery disease trials reporting long-term outcomes using drug-coated balloons (DCBs) is limited. Previously, the DCB showed favorable 1-year outcomes compared with conventional percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), yet durability of the treatment effect with DCBs remains unknown. ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the longer-term outcomes of a paclitaxel-eluting DCB compared to PTA for femoropopliteal lesions. MethodsWe enrolled 331 patients with symptomatic (Rutherford 2 to 4) femoropopliteal lesions up to 18 cm in length. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with DCB or PTA. The 24-month assessments included primary patency, freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), major adverse events, and quality of life and functional outcomes as assessed by the EuroQOL-5D quality-of-life questionnaire, walking impairment questionnaire, and 6-min walk test. ResultsAt 24 months, patients treated with DCB showed significantly higher primary patency when compared with PTA (78.9% vs. 50.1%; p < 0.001). The rates of CD-TLR were 9.1% and 28.3% (p < 0.001) for the DCB and PTA groups, respectively. The overall mortality rate in the DCB group was 8.1% versus 0.9% in the PTA group (p = 0.008). There were no device- or procedure-related deaths and no major amputations in either group through 24-month follow-up. The rate of vessel thrombosis was low (1.5% DCB vs. 3.8% PTA; p = 0.243), with no new events reported between 1 and 2 years. Both groups showed similar functional improvement at 2 years, although DCB patients achieved this level of function with 58% fewer reinterventions. ConclusionsThe 24-month outcomes from the trial demonstrate a durable and superior treatment effect of DCB versus PTA with significantly higher primary patency, lower CD-TLR, and similar functional status improvement with fewer repeat interventions. (Randomized Trial of IN.PACT Admiral Drug Eluting Balloon vs Standard PTA for the Treatment of SFA and Proximal Popliteal Arterial Disease [INPACT SFA I]; NCT01175850; and IN.PACT Admiral Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Standard Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Superficial Femoral Artery [SFA] and Proximal Popliteal Artery [PPA] [INPACT SFA II]; NCT01566461)

Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of Recurrent Multimetal-Layered In-Stent Restenosis

This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with recurrent drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) treated with a second-generation DES or with a drug-coated balloon (DCB). To date, there are no reports of DCB treatment and limited data with regard to the efficacy of further DES implantation for recurrent ISR. Between January 2008 and December 2013, 171 lesions were assessed for eligibility (82 lesions in the second-generation DES group and 89 lesions in the DCB group). Acute gain was greater in the second-generation DES group (second-generation DES, 2.09 ± 0.53 mm vs. DCBs, 1.60 ± 0.62 mm, p< 0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiac events were comparable (at 1 year, DES 14.0% vs. DCBs 12.3%; at 2 years, DES 28.8% vs. DCBs 43.5%, p= 0.21). Major adverse cardiac event rates were mainly driven by target lesion revascularization (at 1 year, DES 12.5% vs. DCBs 10.9%; at 2 years, DES 27.7% vs. DCBs 38.3%; p= 0.40). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (1 patient in each group). Multivariable analysis revealed ISR recurrence within 1 year (hazard ratio: 2.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 5.18, p= 0.02) and lesion length (per 10-mm increase) (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.32, p= 0.049) to be independent predictors of TLR. The results after both treatments were equivalent. ISR recurrence within 1 year of the first reintervention and lesion length were independent predictors of future target lesion revascularization. Larger studies are required to confirm the late (>1 year) differences with regard to clinical outcomes.

The LEVANT I (Lutonix Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Prevention of Femoropopliteal Restenosis) Trial for Femoropopliteal Revascularization: First-in-Human Randomized Trial of Low-Dose Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Uncoated Balloon Angioplasty

This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Lutonix drug-coated balloon (DCB) coated with 2 μg/mm(2)paclitaxel and a polysorbate/sorbitol carrier for treatment of femoropopliteal lesions. Percutaneous treatment of peripheral vascular disease is associated with a high recurrence. Paclitaxel-coated balloons at 3 μg/mm(2) formulated differently have shown promising results with reduced restenosis. Methods Subjects at 9 centers with Rutherford class 2 to 5 femoropopliteal lesions were randomized between June 2009 and December 2009 to treatment with Lutonix DCB (n = 49) versus uncoated balloons (control group [n = 52]), stratified by whether balloon-only treatment (n = 75) or stenting (n = 26) was intended. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included adjudicated major adverse events (death, amputation, target lesion thrombosis, reintervention), functional outcomes, and pharmacokinetics. Demographic, peripheral vascular disease, and lesion characteristics were matched, with mean lesion length of 8.1 3.8 cm and 42% total occlusions. At 6 months, late lumen loss was 58% lower for the Lutonix DCB group (0.46 1.13 mm) than for the control group (1.09 1.07 mm; p = 0.016). Composite 24-month major adverse events were 39% for the DCB group, including 15 target lesion revascularizations, 1 amputation, and 4 deaths versus 46% for uncoated balloon group, with 20 target lesion revascularizations, 1 thrombosis, and 5 deaths. Pharmacokinetics showed biexponential decay with peak concentration (Cmax) of 59 ng/ml and total observed exposure (AUC(all)) of 73 ng h/ml. For successful DCB deployment excluding 8 malfunctions, 6-month late lumen loss was 0.39 mm and the 24-month target lesion revascularization rate was 24%. Treatment of femoropopliteal lesions with the low-dose Lutonix DCB reduced late lumen loss with safety comparable to that of control angioplasty. (LEVANT I, The Lutonix Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Prevention of Femoropopliteal Restenosis; NCT00930813)

Vascular, downstream, and pharmacokinetic responses to treatment with a low dose drug‐coated balloon in a swine femoral artery model

This study was designed to evaluate the safety of a novel drug-coated balloon (DCB) with 2 µg/mm(2) paclitaxel and a carrier comprised of polysorbate and sorbitol in a swine femoral artery model. DCB have emerged as a therapeutic alternative in the treatment of peripheral vascular disease. The femoral arteries of 45 swine were treated with low pressure balloon inflation either 1× clinical dose (single inflation, 2 µg/mm(2) paclitaxel) or 4× dose (2 DCBs, each with 4 µg/mm(2) paclitaxel) or control (uncoated) balloons. The treated arteries, downstream vascular beds, and organs were assessed histologically at 28, 90, and 180-days. Twenty-four swine were treated with 1× dose for pharmacokinetic analysis through 30 days. Arterial tissue paclitaxel concentration was 58.8 ± 54.2 ng/mg at 1-hr and 0.3 ± 0.4 ng/mg at 30 days, whereas plasma paclitaxel could no longer be detected after 1 day. The treated arteries displayed minimal endothelial loss, fibrin deposition, and inflammation with long-term dose-dependent drug effect (medial smooth muscle cell loss) peaking at 90 days for both 1× (1.1 ± 1.4 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0, P = 0.008) and 4× dose (2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 0.0 ± 0.0, P < 0.001). In parallel, healing of the treated arteries was evident by significantly greater medial proteoglycan and collagen deposition at 180 days. No evidence of ischemia from downstream emboli or systemic toxicity was observed even for 4× DCB groups. The findings indicate desired pharmacologic levels with biologic effects at early and healing at late time points in the treated arteries, without evidence of significant downstream emboli or systemic toxicity, consistent with safety of the Lutonix DCB.

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Catheter Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Stent for the Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis

Treatment of in-stent restenosis with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter as compared with plain balloon angioplasty has shown surprisingly low late lumen loss at 6 months and fewer major adverse cardiac events up to 2 years. We compared the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent as the current standard of care. One hundred thirty-one patients with coronary in-stent restenosis were randomly assigned to treatment by a paclitaxel-coated balloon (3 microg/mm2) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent. The main inclusion criteria encompassed diameter stenosis of > or =70% and < or =22 mm in length, with a vessel diameter of 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The primary end point was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. At 6 months follow-up, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.38+/-0.61 mm in the drug-eluting stent group versus 0.17+/-0.42 mm (P=0.03) in the drug-coated balloon group, resulting in a binary restenosis rate of 12 of 59 (20%) versus 4 of 57 (7%; P=0.06). At 12 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events were 22% and 9%, respectively (P=0.08). This difference was primarily due to the need for target lesion revascularization in 4 patients (6%) in the coated-balloon group, compared with 10 patients (15%) in the stent group (P=0.15). Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with the paclitaxel-coated balloon was at least as efficacious and as well tolerated as the paclitaxel-eluting stent. For the treatment of in-stent restenosis, inhibition of re-restenosis does not require a second stent implantation.

Two year follow-up after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter

We are presenting an extension of a previously published trial on the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon in coronary ISR in a larger patient population and after a complete follow-up of 2 years. Hundred eight patients were enrolled in two separately randomized, double-blind multicenter trials on efficacy and safety using an identical protocol. Patients were treated by the paclitaxel-coated (3 microg/mm(2) balloon surface; Paccocath) or an uncoated balloon. The main inclusion criteria were a diameter stenosis of >or=70% and <30 mm length with a vessel diameter of 2.5-3.5 mm. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss in-segment. Secondary endpoints included binary restenosis rate and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After six months in-segment late lumen loss was 0.81 +/- 0.79 mm in the uncoated balloon group vs. 0.11 +/- 0.45 mm (P < 0.001) in the drug-coated balloon group resulting in a binary restenosis rate of 25/49 vs. 3/47 (P < 0.001). Until 12 months post procedure 20 patients in the uncoated balloon group compared to two patients in the coated balloon group required target lesion revascularization (P = 0.001). Between 12 and 24 only two MACE were recorded, a stroke in the uncoated and a target lesion revascularization in the coated balloon group. Treatment of coronary ISR with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters persistently reduces repeat restenosis up to 2 years. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00106587, NCT00409981).