4.3 Article

Assessment of a Drug-Eluting Balloon for the Treatment of de novo Coronary Lesions Guided by Optical Coherence Tomography: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

CARDIOLOGY
卷 136, 期 4, 页码 252-257

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000452125

关键词

Coronary atherosclerosis; Drug-eluting balloon; Cutting balloon; Optical coherence tomography

资金

  1. Chinese PLA General Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The drug-eluting balloon (DEB) is a promising tool to prevent restenosis after coronary angioplasty. However, data on the outcomes of DEB in de novo lesions are scarce. Vessel recoil and constrictive remodeling are the dominant causes of restenosis after angioplasty. The use of cutting balloons (CB) may effectively reduce elastic recoil after balloon dilation. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEB in treating de novo coronary artery lesions, using a predilation strategy with cutting balloon (CB) dilation before DEB angioplasty. Methods/Design: We present the design of a prospective, single-center, open-label, randomized, 2-arm clinical trial aiming to assess whether or not the strategy of CB dilation before DEB angioplasty reduces the primary end point of late lumen loss (LLL) compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation alone for de novo coronary artery lesions. A total of 120 patients will be randomly enrolled into the DEB or DES group (1:1 ratio). The primary end point is insegment LLL at 12 months as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Secondary end points include procedural success, such as angiographic success and device success, and clinical outcomes including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Discussion: The study will evaluate the clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes, and safety of DEB after CB dilation compared with DES for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions guided by OCT. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据