2. Universität Giessen, Giessen Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Rhine-Main, Bad Nauheim, Germany,
3. Universitätsklinikum, Ulm Germany
4. Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum, Universitätsmedizin Berlin Germany
5. Universitätsklinikum Rostock, Rostock Germany
6. Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Germany
7. Clinique Saint Hilaire, Rouen France
8. Clinique du Millénaire, Montpellier France
9. PhyMedExp, Université de Montpellier, INSERM, CNRS, Cardiology Department, CHU de Montpellier, France
10. Hemoteq AG, Würselen Germany
11. Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough MA USA
12. Universität Giessen, Giessen Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Rhine-Main, Bad Nauheim, Germany
As a public service to our readership, this article - peer reviewed by the Editors of EuroIntervention - has been published immediately upon acceptance as it was received. The content of this article is the sole responsibility of the authors, and not that of the journal or its publishers.
Please note that supplementary movies are not available online at this stage. Once a paper is published in its edited and formatted form, it will be accompanied online by any supplementary movies.
To read the full content of this article, please log in to download the PDF.
Methods and results: AGENT ISR is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study comparing the Agent and SeQuent Please DCB. A total of 125 patients (mean age ~68 years, 18% female) with in-stent restenosis of a previously treated lesion <28 mm in length were randomised at 11 sites in Europe to Agent (n=65) or SeQuent Please (n=60).The primary endpoint, 6-month in-stent late lumen loss, in the Agent group (0.397±0.43 mm [n=51]) was non-inferior to that of the SeQuent Please group (0.393±0.536 mm [n=49]), as the two-sided upper 95% confidence boundary for the difference between groups was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.20 (difference, 0.004, 95% CI [-0.189, 0.196]; pnon-inferiority=0.046). At 1 year, mortality was 3.1% in Agent and 1.7% in SeQuent Please patients (P>0.99), target lesion revascularisation 7.7% vs. 10.0% (P=0.89), and stent thrombosis 0% vs. 3.3% (P=0.44). Similar improvements in quality of life were seen in the two groups.
Conclusions: In this head-to-head comparison of two DCB, Agent proved to be non-inferior to SeQuent Please for in-stent late lumen loss at 6 months.
Sign in to read and download the full articleForgot your password?
Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com