Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Comparison of drug-coated balloon with conventional balloon for angioplasty in symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis
  1. Yao Tang1,
  2. Tianxiao Li2,
  3. Wenbo Liu1,
  4. Yanyan He2,
  5. Liangfu Zhu2,
  6. Zi-Liang Wang2,
  7. Yingkun He2
  1. 1Cerebrovascular and Neurosurgery Department of Stroke Center, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
  2. 2Cerebrovascular and Neurosurgery Department of Interventional Center, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Henan Provincial People's Hospital; Henan Provincial Neurointerventional Engineering Research Center, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cerebrovascular Disease and Henan Engineering Research Center of Cerebrovascular Intervention, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Yingkun He, Department of Cerebrovascular and Neurosurgery, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, Henan, China; heyingkun{at}zzu.edu.cn

Abstract

Background Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty has been studied for reducing the occurrence of restenosis after treatment for intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS), but no comparison has been published of the use of drug-coated and non-coated balloons in angioplasty for ICAS. We aim to compare the safety and efficacy of DCB angioplasty with conventional balloon (CB) angioplasty for the treatment of symptomatic ICAS.

Methods One hundred cases with symptomatic ICAS treated with DCB (n=49) and CB (n=51) angioplasty were retrospectively analyzed. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was completed to eliminate bias in the patients selected for further analysis. The periprocedural events and follow-up outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results There were 32 cases in each group after PSM. Technical success (<50% residual stenosis) was achieved in 30 cases (93.8%) in the DCB group and in 28 cases (87.5%) in the CB group. The rates of stroke or mortality within 30 days were 3.1% in the DCB group and 6.3% in the CB group (p=1). The incidence of restenosis in the DCB group (6.3%) was significantly lower than that in the CB group (31.3%) (p=0.01).

Conclusions Compared with CB angioplasty, DCB angioplasty can effectively reduce the incidence of restenosis. Further studies are needed to validate the role of DCB angioplasty in the management of symptomatic ICAS.

  • Angioplasty
  • Atherosclerosis
  • Stenosis
  • Stroke
  • Balloon

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

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. Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors Contributors: YT drafted and revised the paper, conceived and designed the study, acquired and analyzed the data. TL provided study ideas and resources and revised the manuscript critically. WL acquired data, applied software and statistics. YH acquired, monitored and validated data. LZ undertook the study of patients and supervised the whole study. Z-LW undertook the study of patients and supervised the whole study. YH formulated the overarching research goals and aims, designed the study, wrote the statistical analysis plan, and drafted and revised the paper. YH is responsible for the overall content as guarantor.

  • Funding (1) Henan Province Key Research and Development & Promotion Special (Science and Technology) Foundation (202102310037). (2) Key Scientific Research Projects of Colleges and Universities in Henan Province (21A320002). (3) Henan Young and Middle-Aged Health Science and Technology Innovation Talent Training Project (YXKC2020041). (4) Henan Medical Science and Technology Research Plan Provincial and Ministerial Youth Project (SBGJ202003004).

  • 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.