Journals / The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology / 2016 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 4

What is better for predilatation in bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: a non-compliant or a compliant balloon?

Pages
244–249
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, use of NCB reduces the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume but had no effect on 1 year clinical follow-up results compared with CB

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The bioresorbable vascular scaffold system (BVS) is a fully absorbable vascular treatment system.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, we aimed to compare the periprocedural effectiveness and long term results of non-compliant balloon (NCB) and compliant balloon (CB) systems, which are used for predilatation before BVS implantation.Methods: One hundred forty-six BVS-treated lesions from 119 patients were retrospectively analyzed in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, use of NCB reduces the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume but had no effect on 1 year clinical follow-up results compared with CB
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The bioresorbable vascular scaffold system (BVS) is a fully absorbable vascular treatment system. In this study, we aimed to compare the periprocedural effectiveness and long term results of non-compliant balloon (NCB) and compliant balloon (CB) systems, which are used for predilatation before BVS implantation.Methods: One hundred forty-six BVS-treated lesions from 119 patients were retrospectively analyzed in the study. Patients with acute coronary syndrome, stable angina and silent ischemia were included in the study. Lesions and patients were categorized into the NCB and CB groups according to the type of balloon used for predilatation. NCB was implemented on 72 lesions (59 patients) and CB was implemented on 74 lesions (60 patients). The two groups were compared on terms of procedural features and both in-hospital and 1-year clinical follow-up results. Chisquare and independent sample t test were performed for statistical analysis. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of patient characteristics and lesion properties. The number of postdilated lesions was significantly higher in the CB group. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were significantly lower in the NCB group. At follow-up, one patient had myocardial infarction in the CB group because of scaffold thrombosis and no mortality was observed.Conclusion: Predilatation with NCB before BVS implantation reduces the need for postdilatation. In addition, use of NCB reduces the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume but had no effect on 1 year clinical follow-up results compared with CB

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZEL, E., TAŞTAN, A., ÖZTÜRK, A., ÖZCAN, E. E., UYAR, S., ŞENARSLAN, Ö. (2016). What is better for predilatation in bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: a non-compliant or a compliant balloon?. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 4, 244–249. https://ajindex.com/articles/366726

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Mattesini A, Secco GG, Dall'Ara G, Ghione M, Rama-Merchan JC, Lupi A, et al. ABSORB biodegradable stents versus second-genera- tion metal stents: a comparison study of 100 complex lesions treated under OCT guidance. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 741-50.
  2. Attizzani GF, Ohno Y, Capranzano P, La Manna A, Francaviglia B, Grasso C, et al. Initial experience of percutaneous coronary inter- vention in bifurcations with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds using different techniques-insights from optical coherence tomography. Int J Cardiol 2013; 170: e33-5. Ielasi A, Saino A, Silvestro A, Personeni D, Tespili M. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation for recurrent in-stent restenosis: an option in case of multiple failures? EuroIntervention 2014; 10: 337. Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Regar E, Webster M, Thuesen L, et al. Three-year results of clinical follow-up after a bioresorb- able everolimus-eluting scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB trial. EuroIntervention 2010; 6: 447-53.
  3. Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, Cequier A, Carrié D, Iniguez A, et al. A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 43-54.
  4. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garcia-Garcia HM, Muramatsu T, van Geuns RJ, de Bruyne B, et al. Dynamics of vessel wall changes following the implantation of the absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a multi-imaging modality study at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. EuroIntervention 2014; 9: 1271-84.
  5. Ballarino MA, Moreyra E Jr, Damonte A, Sampaolesi A, Woodfield S, Pacheco G, et al. Multicenter randomized comparison of direct vs conventional stenting: the DIRECTO trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003; 58: 434-40.
  6. Baim DS, Flatley M, Caputo R, O'Shaughnessy C, Low R, Fanelli C, et al. Comparison of predilatation vs direct stenting in coronary treatment using the Medtronic AVE S670 coronary stent system (The PREDICT trial). Am J Cardiol 2001; 88: 1364-9.
  7. Martinez-Elbai L, Ruiz-Nodar JM, Zueco J, López-Minguez JR, Moreu J, Calvo I, et al. Direct coronary stenting versus stenting with balloon pre-dilation: immediate and follow-up results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized study. The DISCO trial. Eur Heart J 2002; 23: 633-40.
  8. Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E, Dudek