The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons for the treatment of in-stent restenosis as compared with XXXX and with conventional balloon angioplasty.

@entity1 @entity75 @entity256 @entity299 @entity583 @entity204 @entity734
Background/Aims: Treatment of @entity256 (ISR) is still associated with a high incidence of recurrence. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for the treatment of ISR as compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) and @entity734 ( @entity734 ). Methods: Between January 2006 and May 2012 a total of 177 @entity1 (188 lesions, 64.1    11.7 years old) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR were retrospectively enrolled. Clinical outcomes were compared between @entity1 treated with DEB (n = 58, 32.8%), conventional BA (n = 65, 36.7%), or @entity734 (n = 54, 30.5%). The primary end point was a major adverse @entity299 (MACE), defined as a composite of @entity204 , @entity583 , and @entity75 revascularization(TLR). Results: Baseline characteristics were not different except for a history of previous MI, which was more frequent in @entity1 treated by conventional BA or @entity734 than in @entity1 treated by DEB (40.0% vs. 48.1% vs. 17.2%, respectively, p = 0.002). The total incidences of MACEs were 10.7%, 7.4%, and 15.4% in @entity1 treated by DEB, @entity734 , or conventional BA, respectively (p > 0.05). TLR was more frequent in @entity1 treated by conventional BA than in @entity1 treated by DEB or @entity734 , but this was not statistically significant (10.8% vs. 6.9% vs. 3.7%, p > 0.05 between all group pairs, respectively). Conclusions: This study showed that percutaneous coronary intervention using DEB might be a feasible alternative to conventional BA or @entity734 implantation for treatment of coronary ISR. Further large-scaled, randomized study assessing long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes will be needed.
