Search

Background: The modes of failure of coronary polymer-jacketed guidewires have received limited study.Methods: We queried the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database between January 2011 and December 2020 for reports on coronary polymer-jacketed guidewires and retrieved 254 reports.Results: The most common failure mode was failure of the guidewire to cross (36.2%), followed by guidewire fracture (35%), peeling of the polymer jacket (13.8%), failure to retrieve the guidewire (13.8%), and guidewire unraveling (4.7%). Guidewire fracture was more common with soft (37.3%) compared with stiff (23.8%) guidewires. Failure of retrieval was only reported with soft guidewires (9%). Coronary perforation and dissection occurred in 19.7% and 7.9% of the reports, with more reports with stiff as compared with soft guidewires (45.2% vs. 14.6% for perforation and 21.4% vs. 5.3% for dissection).Conclusions: The most common failure modes of polymer-jacketed guidewires during percutaneous coronary intervention are failure to cross the lesion, guidewire fracture, and peeling of the polymer jacket. Coronary perforations were more common with stiff whereas wire fracture was more common with soft polymer-jacketed guidewires. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in small-vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) remains controversial.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of DCB vs. DES in de-novo SVD. We included a total of 5 RCTs (1459 patients), with (DCB n = 734 and DES n = 725).Results: Over a median follow-up duration of 6 months, DCB was associated with smaller late lumen loss (LLL) compared with DES (mean difference -0.12 mm) (95% confidence intervals (CI) [-0.21, -0.03 mm], p = 0.01). Over a median follow-up of 12 months, both modalities had similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (8.7% vs. 10.2%; odds ratio (OR): 0.94, 95% CI [0.49-1.79], p = 084), all-cause mortality (1.17% vs. 2.38%; OR: 0.53, 95% CI [0.16-1.75], p = 0.30), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.9% vs. 3.9%; OR: 1.26, 95% CI [0.51-3.14], p = 0.62), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (8.2% vs. 7.8%; OR: 1.06, 95% CI [0.40-2.82], p = 0.91). DCBs were associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) compared with DES (1.55% vs. 3.31%; OR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.23-1.00], p = 0.05, I2 = 0%).Conclusion: PCI of SVD with DCBs is associated with smaller LLL, lower risk of MI, and similar risk of MACE, death, TLR, and TVR compared with DES over one year. DCB appears as an attractive alternative to DES in patients with de-novo SVD, but long-term clinical data are still needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) remains associated with inferior clinical outcomes and an increased risk of restenosis compared with non-diabetics even in the era of drug-eluting stents (DES). The outcomes with drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in diabetic patients have received limited study.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of all studies published between January 2000 and January 2019 reporting the outcomes with DCB vs. DES after PCI of de-novo coronary lesions in diabetic patients. Outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), binary restenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), and late lumen loss (LLL).Results: Three studies with 378 patients (440 lesions) were included in the meta-analysis. During 17.3 ± 11.3 months follow-up, DCB were associated with a similar risk of MACE (OR: 0.63, 95% CI [0.36, 1.12], p = 0.11), TLR (OR: 0.51, 95% CI [0.25, 1.06] p = 0.07), binary restenosis (OR: 0.42, 95% CI [0.09, 1.92], p = 0.26), and LLL (mean difference: -0.13 mm, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.14], p = 0.34) compared with DES.Conclusion: In diabetic patients with de-novo coronary lesions undergoing PCI, DCBs are associated with similar outcomes compared with first-generation DES, with a signal toward potential benefit in lowering target lesion revascularization. Further randomized studies are needed to compare the newer-generation DCBs and DES in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]