The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (EAPCI)

Randomized Comparison of Bare Metal or Drug-Eluting Stent versus Drug Coated Balloon in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction - PEPCAD NSTEMI

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00723

1. Universitaetsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar,, Germany
2. Zentralklinik, Bad Berka, Germany
3. Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany
4. Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany
5. Uniklinik Köln, Herzzentrum, Cologne, Germany
6. Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany
7. Zentralklinik, Bad Berka, Germany
8. Zentralklinik, Bad Berka, Germany
9. Zentralklinik, Bad Berka, Germany
10. Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany
11. Herz-Kreislauf-Zentrum, Rotenburg an der Fulda, Germany
12. Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany
13. Universitätsklinikum Jena, Germany
14. Klinikum Coburg, Coburg, Germany
15. Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany
Disclaimer:

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.

To read the full content of this article, please log in to download the PDF.

Two hundred and ten patients with Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction were randomized. Mean age was 67±12 years, 67% were male, 62% had multivessel disease, and 31% were diabetics. In the stent group, 56% of patients were treated with BMS, 44% with current generation DES. In the DCB group, 85% of patients were treated with DCB only whereas 15% underwent additional stent implantation. During a follow-up of 9.2 ± 0.7 months, DCB treatment was noninferior to stent treatment with a target lesion failure (TLF) of 3.8% vs 6.6% (intention-to-treat, p=0.53). Total MACE rate was 6.7% for DCB vs 14.2% for stent treatment (p=0.11), and 5.9% vs. 14.4% in the per protocol analysis (p=0.056), respectively.

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet? Sign up for free!
Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Read next article

The SYNTAX score on its way out or … towards artificial intelligence: part II