Use Of Paclitaxel-coated Balloon Research Articles

The phenomenon of drug-coating embolism during lower extremity endovascular interventions with paclitaxel-coated balloon.

There is a risk of distal embolization lower extremity endovascular interventions. Possibly a drug-coating embolism caused by coating detachment from intravascular devices. This review focuses on providing updated information on distal embolism in endovascular revascularization of lower extremity arteries, including the use of drug-coated balloons. Drug-coating embolism is a special case of distal embolization during recanalization of the arteries of the lower extremities. Preclinical studies have demonstrated embolization of drug-coated balloons during angioplasty of lower extremity arteries. However, the clinical role of drug-coating embolism is not completely clear. A 2020 meta-analysis found an increased risk of major lower extremity amputation after drug-coated balloon angioplasty in patients with critical limb ischemia. But long-term research is emerging to support the safety of using these devices. Perhaps a more thorough assessment of the quality of life and the degree of compensation of lower limb ischemia with an intraoperative assessment of the frequency of peripheral embolizations using ultrasound emboli detection, as well as microcirculation with transcutaneous oximetry and laser Doppler flowmetry of the operated lower limb will allow a more detailed study of the phenomenon of drug-coating embolism and its impact on long-term clinical outcomes. According to the results of preclinical studies, the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons leads to an increase in the concentration of paclitaxel in distal skeletal muscles. However, paclitaxel concentration in skeletal muscle was significantly higher in first-generation DCBs. The non-target effects of drug-coating balloon are not fully understood and require further study. Understanding the phenomenon of drug-coating embolism can help physicians to better assess the patient risk and to minimize complications.

Paclitaxel exerts antiplatelet and antithrombotic activities: Additional benefit from use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and -eluting stents in coronary revascularization and prevention of in-stent restenosis

IntroductionPaclitaxel is a microtubule-stabilizing drug used to treat several types of cancer, including ovarian and breast cancer. Because of its antiproliferative effect on vascular smooth muscle cells, balloons and stents are coated with paclitaxel for use in coronary revascularization and prevention of in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, mechanisms underlying ISR are complicated. Platelet activation is one of the major causes of ISR after percutaneous coronary intervention. Although the antiplatelet activity of paclitaxel was noted in rabbit platelets, the effect of paclitaxel on platelets remains unclear. This study investigated whether paclitaxel exhibits antiplatelet activity in human platelets. Methods and resultsPaclitaxel inhibited platelet aggregation induced by collagen but not that induced by thrombin, arachidonic acid, or U46619, suggesting that paclitaxel is more sensitive to the inhibition of collagen-induced platelet activation. Moreover, paclitaxel blocked collagen receptor glycoprotein (GP) VI downstream signaling molecules, including Lyn, Fyn, PLCγ2, PKC, Akt, and MAPKs. However, paclitaxel did not directly bind to GPVI and cause GPVI shedding, as detected by surface plasmon resonance and flow cytometry, respectively, indicating that paclitaxel may interfere with GPVI downstream signaling molecules, such as Lyn and Fyn. Paclitaxel also prevented granule release and GPIIbIIIa activation induced by collagen and low convulxin doses. Moreover, paclitaxel attenuated pulmonary thrombosis and delayed platelet thrombus formation in mesenteric microvessels without significantly affecting hemostasis. ConclusionPaclitaxel exerts antiplatelet and antithrombotic effects. Thus, paclitaxel may provide additional benefits beyond its antiproliferative effect when used in drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents for coronary revascularization and prevention of ISR.

Single-Center Study Evaluating Long-Term Major Adverse Outcomes with the Use of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons in Treating Infrainguinal Arterial Disease.

Paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been shown to reduce target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate, but recently an association between paclitaxel and an increase in mortality at 5-year was reported. We reviewed the 5-year mortality and freedom from TLR rates from a single center among patients that received DCB. Consecutive patients that received DCB from July 8, 2015 to November 27, 2019 with follow-up obtained from medical records and review of official death certificates were reviewed. The primary objective was total mortality and TLR rates with cumulative exposure to paclitaxel-coated balloons. Demographic, angiographic, clinical, and procedural variables were collected. Causes of mortality were classified according to death certificates. Descriptive analysis was performed on all variables. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the total length of DCBs in those who were alive and those who died by the end of study. Kaplan-Meier (KM) was used to plot the freedom from mortality up to 5 years. A total of 91 symptomatic patients received the Lutonix balloon at index to treat femoropopliteal arterial disease and subsequently received either Lutonix or in.PACT during the follow-up phase for additional procedures. Age was 68.4 ± 10.8 years (56.0% males). Critical limb ischemia was present in 20.9%. There was no statistical difference in mortality between the median total number of balloons used among patients who were alive versus those who died (2.5 vs. 3.0, p -value = 0.89). Also, there was no statistical difference in the total length of DCB balloons used between those who were alive and those who died at the end of the study (p-value = 0.39). There were no in-hospital amputation or death. At 5-year follow-up KM freedom from TLR was 78.5%. A total of 13 patients died during follow-up. Of these 10 received only the Lutonix balloon and 3 did receive both Lutonix and In.PACT. The yearly KM freedom from mortality for the Lutonix only cohort were 92.7, 89.1, 85.5, 83.6, and 81.8% at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, respectively. Freedom from TLR and mortality at 5 years appears to be favorable with the use of DCB, predominantly Lutonix balloon in this cohort. This data needs to be supported prospectively by a larger number of patients.

Use of paclitaxel-coated balloons in clinical setting is not associated with increased mortality compared with plain balloon angioplasty in femoropopliteal lesions

Use of paclitaxel-coated balloons in clinical setting is not associated with increased mortality compared with plain balloon angioplasty in femoropopliteal lesions

Use of paclitaxel-coated balloons in clinical setting is not associated with increased mortality compared with plain balloon angioplasty in femoropopliteal lesions

ObjectiveTo investigate mortality and causes of death associated with the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) compared with plain balloon (PB) angioplasty in the treatment of femoropopliteal artery lesions in real-world clinical setting. MethodsThis retrospective, single-center study included patients who underwent percutaneous femoropopliteal artery angioplasty without stenting between years 2014 and 2020. Patients were stratified into PCB and PB groups according to the index procedure. Those who had undergone any prior or subsequent intervention using drug-eluting technology were excluded from the PB group. Long-term survival was estimated up to 5 years using the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk factors for all-cause mortality were assessed in a multivariable analysis. Causes of death were retrieved from a national registry. ResultsThe study included 139 patients treated with PB and 190 with PCB. Patients treated with PCB had a higher prevalence of chronic pulmonary disease (27% vs 17%; P = .02) and were less often on anticoagulant therapy (34% vs 48%; P = .01) compared with patients in the PB group. Those treated with PB were more likely to have chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI; 82% vs 72%; P = .04). Ipsilateral perioperative amputation rate was significantly higher in the PB group (7% vs 1%; P = .01). There were no major differences in other 30-day outcomes between the groups and no differences in the rates of reinterventions and ipsilateral amputations during a mean follow-up time of 2.7 ± 1.9 years. Survival at 1 year in the PCB group was 83% ± 3% compared with 73% ± 4% in the PB group (P = .0001). The 5-year survival estimates were 56% ± 5% and 37% ± 5%, respectively. PCB use was independently associated with decreased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.97). Independent risk factors for increased mortality were age (HR, 1.04 per year; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06), cardiac insufficiency (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.12-2.27), chronic renal insufficiency (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.47-2.85), anticoagulation therapy (HR, 1.65, 95% CI, 1.16-2.34), and CLTI (HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.51-5.39). In the PCB group, 63% of deaths were due to cardiovascular causes compared with 42% in the PB group (P < .01). ConclusionsThe use of PCB is safe, and there is no concern of increased mortality after the procedure based on the 5-year survival estimates.

Endovascular interventions for peripheral arterial disease

Successful revascularization of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) requires acomprehensive understanding of the risk population and the available treatment options. Even the urgency of revascularization varies widely depending on the clinical presentation. Patients with intermittent claudication should undergo astructured exercise program before revascularization may become necessary, whereas acute limb ischemia is amedical emergency and must be revascularized within afew hours. Endovascular treatment techniques have evolved rapidly over the past 20years. New technologies and procedural techniques allow even complex lesions to be successfully treated with endovascular techniques, and most patients can now be treated minimally invasively in line with an "endovascular first" strategy. Bypass surgery remains an important option for patients with advanced disease. The techniques used vary depending on the clinical presentation, location, and complexity of the lesion. Although the evidence for different techniques is limited, avariety of clinical and lesion factors are known to be critical for acute technical success and long-term patency rates. The use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents has been shown to significantly reduce restenosis and reintervention rates after femoropopliteal interventions. However, alate mortality signal associated with the use of these devices continues to be debated. After successful intervention, appropriate drug therapy and standardized follow-up should be established to prevent adverse limb events and reduce the high rate of cardiovascular events.

Abstract 352: Experimental Evaluation Of The Embolic Potential Of Paclitaxel-coated Stents.

Introduction: Recent studies have shown that paclitaxel-coated stents improve the patency of arteries treated for peripheral arterial disease. Embolization of paclitaxel crystals has been demonstrated after the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and raises questions about the safety of these devices. The objective of this study was to compare experimentally the embolic potential of two paclitaxel-coated stents: Eluvia® (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) versus ZilverPTX® (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana) Method: Analyzes were carried out on 12 pigs divided into two groups: Eluvia® (n = 6) and ZilverPTX® (n = 6). After carotid puncture and navigation, the pigs received in each external iliac artery the stent corresponding to their group. Six pairs were established by pairing the pigs from the two groups one by one, to examine different post-implantation timepoints: 30 minutes, 6 hours, 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days. The concentration measurement and the histological analysis of paclitaxel were carried out in a blind manner on the plasma, arterial, lymph node and muscle samples. Results: The plasmatic paclitaxel rate decrease over 24 hours after stent implantation was significantly different between the two groups 0.19 [95% CI (0.14; 0.23); p &lt; 0.001] with an undetectable concentration at the 10 th hour for Eluvia® versus 3 days for ZilverPTX®. Significantly higher paclitaxel concentrations with ZilverPTX® stents were observed in muscle samples: extensor digitorum brevis ( p = 0.005), biceps femoris ( p &lt; 0.001), semi-tendon ( p = 0.001), tibialis anterior ( p = 0.001), and in the femoral nodes ( p = 0.005). Histological analysis revealed a trend for more marked intimal inflammation in the arteries stented with ZilverPTX® (p = 0.06), especially on the 7 th and 14 th day. Conclusion: In this study, the plasma decrease and the muscle / lymph node concentrations of paclitaxel reflect a higher embolic risk with the ZilverPTX® stent as compared to the ELUVIA® stent. While the clinical consequences of these findings remain to be elucidated, our results emphasize that the precautionary principles about paclitaxel-coated stents may be justified.

Mortality after Use of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons Correlates with Total Cumulative Dosage of Paclitaxel in Real-World Analysis.

This study used independent, real-world, patient-level data to examine whether the dosage or frequency of paclitaxel exposure correlated with mortality during follow up. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated with a drug-coated balloon (DCB) for an atherosclerotic femoropopliteal lesion from February 2013 to December 2018, excluding patients with non-atherosclerotic lesions or restenosis after DCB treatment in another hospital. We investigated the causes of death, comorbidities (including cancer status), and the initial and total cumulative dosages and frequency of paclitaxel use. To determine whether the dosage or frequency of paclitaxel exposure affected mortality during follow up, we analyzed the risk factors for all-cause death by conducting a time-dependent Cox regression analysis that considered demographics, comorbidities, lesion and procedural characteristics, and paclitaxel exposure data (dosage and frequency). Our analysis examined 225 patients (mean age 71 ± 9 years, range 38–93 years, male 81%). During a mean follow-up duration of 35 months (range 1–89 months), 56 patients (24.9%) died from cardiac disorders (16%, including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or sudden cardiac arrest), malignancy (14.3%), respiratory failure with pneumonia (12.5%), septic shock (12.5%), or another cause. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses identified age (hazard ratio, HR, 1.057; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1019–1096; p = 0.0032), critical limb ischemia (CLI) (HR, 4135; 95% CI, 2171–7876; p < 0.0001), and the total dosage of paclitaxel (mg) (HR, 1.040; 95% CI, 1006–1074; p = 0.0210) as predictors of mortality during follow up. The subgroup analysis found that the total dosage of paclitaxel (mg) was also a predictor of mortality during follow up in the CLI group (HR, 1.046; 95% CI, 1007–1087, p = 0.0198). The estimated cut-off value of total cumulative paclitaxel dosage for predicting mortality was 12 mg as evaluated by minimum p value approach. This patient-level analysis identified the total cumulative dosage of paclitaxel as a predictor of mortality after the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons. Our results provide limited information about the potential dose–response relationship underlying paclitaxel-associated mortality concerns.

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for the Treatment of Symptomatic Central Venous Stenosis in Vascular Access: Results From a European, Multicenter, Single-Arm Retrospective Analysis

Introduction: This was a European, multicenter, investigator-initiated and run, single-arm retrospective analysis to assess the safety and the clinical benefit of the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) for the treatment of symptomatic central venous stenosis (CVS). Materials and Methods: Eleven centers from 7 countries across Europe, submitted 86 cases performed during the period between October 2015 and June 2018. Minimum follow-up was 6 months. Patient baseline demographics and procedural details were collected. Mean age was 62.6 years (SD 15.2 years). Median vascular access age was 3.0 years (IQR 1.2–4.8 years). A total of 55 were arteriovenous fistulas (64%) the rest arteriovenous grafts (31/86, 36%). Vessels treated were 43 subclavian veins, 42 brachiocephalic veins and 1 superior vena cava. Median drug-coated balloon diameter was 10 mm (IQR 8–12 mm). Primary outcome measures were clinically assessed intervention-free period (IFP) of the treated segment at 6 months and procedure-related minor and major complications. Secondary outcome measures included access circuit survival, patient survival, and the investigation of independent factors that influence the IFP. Results: IFP was 62.7% at 6 months. Median patient follow-up time was 1.0 year (IQR 0.5–2.2 years). There was 1 minor complication (1/86; 1.2%) and no major complications. Access circuit survival was 87.7% at 6 months. Patient survival was 79.7% at 2 years according to Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Higher balloon diameters significantly favored IFP [HR 0.71 (0.55–0.92), p=0.006; 5–7 mm group vs 8–12 mm group, p=0.025]. Conclusion: In this analysis, use of PCBs for the treatment of symptomatic CVS was safe. Efficacy was comparable to previous trials. Increased balloon size had a significant effect on patency rates.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial indicates that paclitaxel-coated balloons provide no benefit for arteriovenous fistulas

The role of paclitaxel-coated balloons has been established in the coronary and peripheral arterial circulations with recent interest in the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons to improve patency rates following angioplasty of arteriovenous fistulas. To assess the efficacy of paclitaxel-coated angioplasty balloons to prolong the survival time of target lesion primary patency in arteriovenous fistulas, we designed an investigator-led multi-center randomized controlled trial with follow up time variable for a minimum of one year. Patients with an arteriovenous fistula who were undergoing an angioplasty for a clinical indication were included but patients with one or more lesions outside the treatment segment were excluded. Following successful treatment with a high-pressure balloon, 212 patients were randomized. In the intervention arm, the second component was insertion of a paclitaxel-coated balloon. In the control arm, an identical procedure was followed, but using a standard balloon. The primary endpoint was time to loss of clinically driven target lesion primary patency. Primary analysis showed no significant evidence for a difference in time to end of target lesion primary patency between groups: hazard ratio 1.18 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.78 to 1.79. There were no significant differences for any secondary outcomes, including patency outcomes and adverse events. Thus, our study demonstrated no evidence that paclitaxel-coated balloons provide benefit, following standard care high-pressure balloon angioplasty, in the treatment of arteriovenous fistulas. Hence, in view of the benefit suggested by other trials, the role of paclitaxel-coated angioplasty balloons remains uncertain.

P1356PACLITAXEL-COATED BALLOON ANGIOPLASTY FOR STENOSIS OF ARTERIOVENOUS FISTULA IN PATIENTS UNDER HEMODIALYSIS: 18TH MONTH FOLLOW-UP

Abstract Background and Aims The recording of the experience of the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons in patients with End Stage Renal Disease under hemodialysis (HD) exhibiting narrowing in arteriovenous fistulas (AVF). Method 20 patients with ultrasonographically confirmed AVF dysfunction were subjected after angiographic screening to prosthesis with a simple angioplasty balloon, and then a balloon drug gradually released the drug paclitaxel. After the damage was restored (one-day clinic), arteriovenous communication was used immediately. The degree of vascular stenosis, blood flow to it and kt / V before and after recovery were assessed by ultrasound. At the same time, the clinical course of the patient and the vestibule of the vessel were monitored for 18 months. Results In the 20 patients of the study, since the damage was recovered, AVF was immediately treated without any problems. After angioplasty the degree of stenosis of the responsible vessel was statistically significantly reduced from 69.85% to 27.38% (p &amp;lt;0.05). Flow volume increased statistically significantly from 690.47 mils / min to 942.67 mils / min (p &amp;lt;0.05). The kt / v of patients improved from 1.25 to 1.6. During the 18th -month follow-up, the clinical course of the patients was stable, no problems related to vascular access appeared. Restenosis occurred to two patients, one of each received another successful angioplasty. Conclusion Drug-releasing balloons can be a useful therapeutic option for patients with AVF stenosis due to accelerated endothelial hyperplasia. The use of paclitaxel-coated balloons helps reduce the risk of restenosis of arteriovenous anastomoses and is a safe, time consuming, minimal invasive and immediate solution to AVF management.

Risk of Death and Amputation with Use of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons in the Infrapopliteal Arteries for Treatment of Critical Limb Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

A formal systematic review and study-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating treatment of the infrapopliteal arteries with paclitaxel-coated balloons compared with conventional balloon angioplasty for critical limb ischemia (CLI) was conducted. Medical databases and online content were last screened in September 2019. The primary safety and efficacy endpoint was amputation-free survival defined as freedom from all-cause death and major amputation. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) constituted a secondary efficacy endpoint. Summary effects were synthesized with a random-effects model. Some 8 randomized controlled trials with 1,420 patients (97% CLI) were analyzed up to 1 year follow-up. Amputation-free survival was significantly worse in case of paclitaxel (13.7% crude risk of death or limb loss compared to 9.4% in case of uncoated balloon angioplasty; hazard ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval: 1.12-2.07, p = .008). TLR was significantly reduced in case of paclitaxel (11.8% crude risk of TLR versus 25.6% in control; risk ratio 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.81, p = .004). The harm signal was evident when examining the high-dose (3.0-3.5μg/mm2) devices, but attenuated below significance in case of a low-dose (2.0 μg/mm2) device. Actual causes remain largely unknown, but non-target paclitaxel embolization is a plausible mechanism.

Paclitaxel-coated peripheral artery devices are not associated with increased mortality

ObjectiveLong-term safety concerns have been raised that the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents is linked to excess mortality. Our objective was to compare outcomes in patients treated with paclitaxel vs uncoated devices and to analyze long-term mortality. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective single-institution review of 1170 consecutive patients who underwent femoropopliteal percutaneous revascularization by angioplasty, atherectomy, stent placement, or combination between 2011 and 2018. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Groups were divided into patients who received paclitaxel (n = 652) and those who did not (n = 518). Categorical variables were assessed using χ2 analysis and continuous variables with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A multivariable analysis was performed using multivariable logistic regression models. Mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. ResultsDemographics, risk factors, and Rutherford class were similar between the groups, except that the paclitaxel group was more likely to have diabetes (60.9% vs 55.0%; P = .04), was less likely to be on dialysis (10.7% vs 14.9%; P = .04), and had lower average creatinine concentration (1.6 ± 1.8 mg/dL vs 2.0 ± 2.3 mg/dL; P = .003). There were no differences in all-cause mortality through 2 years between paclitaxel and no-paclitaxel cohorts (25.5% vs 30.3%; log-rank, P = .098). At 3 years and 3.5 years, mortality was significantly lower in the paclitaxel group: year 3, 32.1% vs 39.4% (log-rank, P = .041); year 3.5, 35.2% vs 43.9% (log-rank, P = .027). Survival rates were not significantly different in examining subgroups by diabetes, chronic kidney disease, presence of chronic limb-threatening ischemia, or paclitaxel-coated balloon manufacturer. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that age, dialysis, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure were independent risk factors for mortality, whereas paclitaxel use was associated with lower mortality. ConclusionsThe use of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents does not increase mortality compared with uncoated devices out to 3.5 years. Paclitaxel-coated devices can be used with continued caution, especially in patients at increased risk of restenosis. Further long-term studies are needed to determine the risk of late mortality.

Comparison of drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus conventional angioplasty for arteriovenous fistula stenosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Arteriovenous fistula is the most preferred form of vascular access, but stenosis treated by balloon angioplasty is prone to restenosis. Multiple trials have been published with regard to the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon to prolong lesion patency compared to conventional balloon. Although paclitaxel-coated balloon has theoretical appeal, its use has not been widespread nationwide due to cost and lack of large-scale multicenter studies. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether paclitaxel-coated balloon outperforms conventional balloon to prolong target lesion patency. PubMed/Medline, Clinical Trials.gov, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception through April 2019 for studies that investigated the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon in arteriovenous fistula. Ten studies were included in the final meta-analysis: six studies were randomized controlled trials and four studies were cohort studies. There were 911 participants with a mean age of 64.78 (±5.96) years, and 61.89% were male. Outcome of interest was target lesion primary patency, recorded at 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 24 months. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows that paclitaxel-coated balloons did not statistically improve target lesion primary patency compared to conventional balloons at months 1 (odds ratio = 1.54, p = 0.6373), 3 (odds ratio = 0.57, p = 0.0575), 6 (odds ratio = 0.65, p = 0.3644), 7 (odds ratio = 0.63, p = 0.0582), 12 (odds ratio = 0.64, p = 0.0612), and 24 (odds ratio = 0.43, p = 0.3452). Effect of paclitaxel-coated balloons was statistically significant for cohort studies at months 6 (odds ratio = 0.26, p = 0.0007), 12 (odds ratio = 0.21, p = 0.0001), and 24 (odds ratio = 0.23, p = 0.01). Paclitaxel-coated balloon showed no statistically significant improvement over conventional balloons in decreasing fistula stenosis in randomized controlled trial but were significant for cohort studies.

Recent developments in endovascular interventions to sustain vascular access patency in haemodialysis patients.

There is amassed evidence regarding the use of endovascular procedures for the treatment of vascular access stenosis and thrombosis. A review was conducted based on available randomized trials, cohort studies and retrospective analyses published after 2000 on endovascular treatment of dysfunctional and thrombosed vascular access, with an aim to illustrate the available device and procedural options. The use of paclitaxel-coated balloons, cutting balloons and covered stents is described in the field of vascular access stenosis. The broad spectrum of available devices and endovascular declotting procedures ranging from thrombolysis to thrombectomy is also discussed. Overall, in this review we demonstrate the increasing role of endovascular procedures in vascular access treatment and the improved patency outcomes provided by the implementation of novel endovascular devices. Moreover, the improvement of post-intervention primary patency rates after endovascular declotting procedures and the shift to more thrombectomy-dependent procedures over time is also highlighted. In conclusion, endovascular treatment of dialysis access stenosis and thrombosis has an established role, owing to the implementation of sophisticated devices, allowing, when needed, the simultaneous treatment of thrombosis and the underlying stenosis.

P524Angiographic outcomes after the combined use of paclitaxel-coated balloon and excimer laser coronary angioplasty for drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis

P524Angiographic outcomes after the combined use of paclitaxel-coated balloon and excimer laser coronary angioplasty for drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal Artery Disease.

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty is an established form of therapy for femoropopliteal artery disease. Currently, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) is carried out using standard balloon with or without deployment of a stent but is associated with a high rate of restenosis and stent-related complications. Treatment options for restenosis, especially in-stent restenosis, are limited. Drug-coated balloons promise to reduce the rates of restenosis by effective delivery of antiproliferative agent (paclitaxel) directly to vessel wall without the need for a permanent implant. In this review, we look at the technology and rationale behind drug-coated balloons and examine the evidence available so far. Recently, several studies tested the effectiveness of paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty compared to that of standard PTA in both de novo lesions and in-stent restenosis of femoropopliteal artery. Paclitaxel-coated balloon use resulted in reduced rates of restenosis and favourable clinical outcomes in both these lesion groups. However, in complex lesions, there is still lack of data to support the use of these balloons. Paclitaxel-coated balloon is a safe and effective therapeutic option in patients with both de novo lesions and in-stent restenosis involving femoropopliteal artery. In light of the new evidence, it is time to consider incorporation of this effective therapeutic option into clinical practice. However, further research is needed for the use of paclitaxel-coated balloons in complex femoropopliteal lesions like calcified lesions especially as adjuncts to cutting balloons and debulking strategies.

Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis in High-Risk Patients

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is a major cause of failure of percutaneous coronary intervention. The efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in patients with high-risk clinical features are largely unknown. We enrolled 82 consecutive patients at high risk of bleeding with angiographically significant (diameter stenosis ≥ 50%) ISR of bare metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES), treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon. All patients presented at least one of the following criteria: high bleeding risk, neoplasm, chronic inflammatory disease, and need for noncardiac surgery. Dual antiplatelet therapy was indicated for 4 weeks after the procedure. At angiographic follow-up, overall late lumen loss was 0.24 ± 0.32 mm, with no significant difference between BMS-ISR and DES-ISR (0.25 ± 0.35 vs 0.22 ± 0.30 mm, p = 0.714). The Kaplan-Meier estimate for major adverse clinical events-free survival at 3 years was 81.4% (82.3% in BMS-ISR vs 79.4% in DES-ISR, log-rank p = 0.866). No stent thrombosis has been recorded. In conclusion, the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon seems to be associated with favorable outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for BMS-ISR or DES-ISR in patients with high-risk clinical features and could be considered as a reasonable option in the presence of systemic co-morbidities and contraindications to long-term dual antiplatelet therapy.

TCT-458 Angiographic localized haziness after drug-coated balloon angioplasty in de-novo lesions does not increase the risk of acute coronary thrombosis

Clinical studies demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in various clinical scenarios and support the use of paclitaxel-coated balloon for the treatment of in-stent restenosis, of small coronary arteries and bifurcation lesions. A few small scale studies have reported

Stent healing response following delivery of paclitaxel via durable polymeric matrix versus iopromide-based balloon coating in the familial hypercholesterolaemic swine model of coronary injury

The routine use of paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) in combination with bare metal stents (BMS) in de novo coronary lesions has been questioned. In this study, we aimed to compare the vascular response of BMS implanted using a second-generation PCB (BMS+PCB) with the TAXUS stent (PES) and a BMS control (BMS) in the familial hypercholesterolaemic swine (FHS) model of coronary injury. A total of 17 stents (PES=6, BMS+PCB=6, and BMS=5) were implanted in the coronary territory of 10 FHS using a 20% overstretch injury ratio. Imaging evaluation (QCA and IVUS) was conducted in all animals at baseline and 28 days following stent implantation. Following terminal imaging all animals were euthanised and stented coronary segments harvested for histological evaluation. At 28 days, the lowest degree of percentage diameter stenosis by QCA was achieved by the PES (2.9 ± 9%) followed by the BMS+PCB (9.5 ± 16.4%) and the BMS group (25.65 ± 18.7%, p<0.05). In histology, percentage area of stenosis (BMS+PCB=29.6 ± 6.4% vs. PES=21.5 ± 3.3% vs. BMS=55.2 ± 12.9%; p<0.01) and neointimal thickness (BMS+PCB=0.26 ± 0.1 mm vs. PES=0.21 ± 0.1 mm vs. BMS=0.59 ± 0.2 mm; p<0.01) were significantly reduced in both paclitaxel groups in comparison to BMS controls. Both BMS+PCB and BMS groups had higher endothelialisation scores (PES=1.50 ± 0.9 vs. BMS+PCB=2.73 ± 0.4 vs. BMS=3.00; p<0.05) and lower peri-strut inflammatory scores (PES=0.83 ± 0.4 vs. BMS+PCB=0.20 ± 0.2 vs. BMS=0.43 ± 0.6, p<0.05) when compared to PES. Neointima maturity (PCB+BMS: 2.00 [2-2.4] vs. PES: 1.00 [0.3-1] vs. BMS: 3.00, p<0.05) and fibrin deposition (PCB+BMS: 1.40 ± 0.3 vs. PES: 2.17 ± 0.7 vs. BMS: 0.27 ± 0.3, p<0.05) scores in PCB+BMS appeared to fall between the PES and the BMS ranges. In the FHS coronary injury model, BMS implantation using a PCB yields a degree of neointimal inhibition comparable to the PES. The BMS+PCB combination presented lower degrees of inflammation and fibrin deposition; however, signs of delayed healing were still present.