Table 6.
DCB-only angioplasty in other clinical scenarios
| Author | Design | DCB used | Angiographic outcome (FU, %FU) | Clinical outcome (FU, %FU) |
Duration of DAPT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calcified lesions | |||||
| Ito et al. (2017) [60] | Comparative observational calcified vs. non-calcified lesions | SeQuent Please |
LLL: Calcified 0.03 vs. non-calcified − 0.18, p = 0.093 (6 months, 73%) |
MACE: 18.6% calcified vs. 11.5% non-calcified, p = 0.57 TLR 14.7% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.64 (24 months 100%) |
3 months |
| Rissanen et al. (2017) [61] | Single-armed observational study | SeQuent Please | NR |
MACE*: 20% TLR: 3.1% (24 months, 100%) |
1 month |
| Chronic total occlusions | |||||
| Köln et al. (2017) [62] | Single-armed observational study | SeQuent Please, IN.PACT Falcon | MLD: PP 1.69 ± 0.31 vs. FU 1.59 ± 0.57 p = 0.954 (8 months, 100%) |
MACE: 17.6%, TLR: 17.6% (8 months, 100%) |
1 month |
DCB drug-coated balloon, DES drug-eluting stent, BMS bare metal stent, FU follow-up, %FU percentage follow-up, DAPT dual anti-platelet therapy, LLL late luminal loss, TLR target lesion revascularization, MACE major adverse cardiovascular events, MLD minimal luminal diameter, PP post procedure, NR not reported
*Indicates studies that adopted a different definition for the composite outcome of MACE and these are elaborated upon in Appendix B