Comparison of clinical outcomes after drug-eluting balloon and drug-eluting stent use for in-stent restenosis related acute myocardial infarction: A retrospective study


Abstract

Background. Good results of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) use are achieved in in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions, small vessel disease, long lesions, and bifurcations. However, few reports exist about DEB use in acute myocardial infarction (MI) with ISR. This study’s aim was to evaluate the efficacy of DEB for acute MI with ISR.

Methods. Between November 2011 and December 2015, 117 consecutive patients experienced acute MI including ST-segment elevation MI, and non-ST-segment elevation MI due to ISR, and received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We divided our patients into two groups: (1) PCI with further DEB, and (2) PCI with further drug-eluting stent (DES). Clinical outcomes such as target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, recurrent MI, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality were analyzed.

Results. Patients’ average age was 68.37 ± 11.41 years; 69.2 % were male. A total of 75 patients were enrolled in the DEB group, and 42 patients were enrolled in the DES group. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were the same without statistical differences except gender. The major adverse cardiac cerebral events rate (34.0 % vs. 35.7 %; p=0.688) and cardiovascular mortality rate (11.7 % vs. 12.8 %; p=1.000) were similar in both groups.

Conclusions. DEB is a reasonable strategy for Acute MI with ISR. Compared with DES, DEB an alternative strategy which yielded acceptable short-term outcomes and similar 1-year clinical outcomes.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.