Article Text

Original research
Prevention of in-stent restenosis with drug-eluting balloons in patients with postirradiated carotid stenosis accepting percutaneous angioplasty and stenting
  1. Chia-Hung Wu1,2,3,
  2. Te-Ming Lin1,2,
  3. Chih-Ping Chung2,4,
  4. Kai-Wei Yu1,2,
  5. Wei-An Tai1,2,
  6. Chao-Bao Luo1,2,5,6,
  7. Jiing-Feng Lirng1,2,
  8. Feng-Chi Chang1,2
  1. 1 Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  2. 2 School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
  3. 3 Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
  4. 4 Department of Neurology, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  5. 5 Department of Radiology, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan
  6. 6 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yuanpei University of Medical Technology, Hsinchu, Taiwan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Feng-Chi Chang, Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan; fcchang374{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objective To investigate the technical safety and outcome of in-stent restenosis (ISR) prevention with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) in patients with postirradiated carotid stenosis (PIRCS) undergoing percutaneous angioplasty and stenting (PTAS).

Methods Between 2017 and 2021, we prospectively recruited patients with severe PIRCS for PTAS. They were randomly separated into two groups based on endovascular techniques performed with and without DEB. Preprocedural and early postprocedural (within 24 hours) MRI, short-term ultrasonography (6 months after PTAS), and long-term CT angiography (CTA)/MR angiography (MRA), 12 months after PTAS, were performed. Technical safety was evaluated based on periprocedural neurological complications and the number of recent embolic ischemic lesions (REIL) in the treated brain territory on diffusion-weighted imaging of early postprocedural MRI.

Results Sixty-six (30 with and 36 without DEB) subjects were enrolled, with one failure in techniques. For 65 patients in the DEB versus conventional groups, technical neurological symptoms within 1 month (1/29 (3.4%) vs 0/36; P=0.197) and REIL numbers within 24 hours (1.0±2.1 vs 1.3±1.5; P=0.592) after PTAS showed no differences. Peak systolic velocity (PSVs) on short-term ultrasonography was significantly higher in the conventional group (104.13±42.76 vs .81.95±31.35; P=0.023). The degree of in-stent stenosis (45.93±20.86 vs 26.58±8.75; P<0.001) was higher, and there were more subjects (n=8, 38.9% vs 1, 3.4%; P=0.029) with significant ISR (≥ 50%) in the conventional group than in the DEB group on long-term CTA/MRA.

Conclusions We observed similar technical safety of carotid PTAS with and without DEBs. The number of cases of significant ISR were fewer and the degree of stenosis of ISR was less in primary DEB-PTAS of PIRCS than for conventional PTAS in the 12-month follow-up.

  • Stroke
  • Stent
  • Balloon
  • Stenosis
  • Intervention

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Contributors F-CC, C-PC, C-BL, and J-FL conceived, designed, and supervised the work. C-HW and T-ML analyzed the data. C-HW, F-CC, T-ML, K-WY, and W-AT wrote the manuscript. F-CC is responsible for the overall content as guarantor.

  • Funding This study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan (V111B-032, V112B-007 (to C-HW); V110C-037, V111C-028, V112C-059, V112D67-002-MY3-1 (to F-CC)), Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST 109V1-5-2 and VGHUST 110-G1-5-2 (to F-CC)), Ministry of Science and Technology (National Science and Technology Council) of Taiwan (MOST 110-2314-B-075-005 and 111-2314-B-075-025-MY3 (to C-HW) and MOST 109-2314-B-075-036 and 110-2314-B-075-032 (to F-CC)), Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, Taiwan [CI-109-3, CI-111-2, CI-112-2 (to C-HW)], Professor Tsuen Chang’s Scholarship Program from Medical Scholarship Foundation In Memory Of Professor Albert Ly-Young Shen (to C-HW) and Vivian W Yen Neurological Foundation (to C-HW and F-CC).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.