Reply to the letter to the editor

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00476

Reply: Biological differences of three paclitaxel- and sirolimus-coated balloons on coronary lesions in a rabbit model

Kazuki Aihara1, MD; Sho Torii1, MD, PhD; Yu Sato1, MD; Manabu Shiozaki1, MD; Norihito Nakamura1, MD, PhD; Ayako Yoshikawa1, RN; Yuji Ikari1, MD, PhD; Gaku Nakazawa2, MD, PhD

We thank Finn et al for their insights1 on our study “Biological differences of three paclitaxel- and sirolimus-coated balloons on coronary lesions in a rabbit model” and appreciate the opportunity to address their concerns.

Finn et al recommend a porcine model as preferable for evaluating drug-coated balloons (DCBs), citing its greater anatomical and physiological similarities to humans. While we recognise the advantages of using a porcine model, our choice of a rabbit model was driven by specific experimental goals aimed at “predicting clinical outcomes from preclinical data”. Our recent preclinical study demonstrated a healthy rabbit descending aorta model to compare the drug efficacy of the Ranger paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB [Boston Scientific]) and IN.PACT PCB (Medtronic)2. This study showed similar efficacy between these 2 PCBs, which was subsequently mirrored in clinical outcomes observed in the COMPARE randomised controlled trial (RCT), demonstrating comparable primary patency between the Ranger PCB and IN.PACT PCB3. These results suggest that our rabbit model could effectively predict clinical outcomes for DCBs, meeting our goal in performing a preclinical study.

The current rabbit model demonstrated higher drug...

Sign in to read
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

Volume 20 Number 15
Aug 5, 2024
Volume 20 Number 15
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00052 Mar 18, 2024
Comparative preclinical assessment of drug-coated balloons: a blessing and a curse for clinical translation
Joner M and Wild L
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00053 Nov 4, 2024
The future of sirolimus-coated balloon use in percutaneous coronary intervention
Yeh R and Lalani C
free

10.4244/EIJV8I4A70 Aug 24, 2012
Comparison of two drug-eluting balloons: a report from the SCAAR registry
Bondesson P et al
free

10.4244/EIJV15I14A220 Feb 20, 2020
Clinical outcome after interventions with paclitaxel-coated balloons: a PCR statement
Lansky AJ et al
free
Trending articles
225.68

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00426 Dec 3, 2021
Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease
Lindahl B et al
free
105.78

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00018 Dec 4, 2023
Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations
Lunardi M et al
free
77.85

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00840 Sep 2, 2024
Aortic regurgitation: from mechanisms to management
Baumbach A et al
free
68.7

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00545 Sep 20, 2022
Coronary lithotripsy for the treatment of underexpanded stents: the international; multicentre CRUNCH registry
Tovar Forero M et al
free
47.8

NEW INNOVATION

10.4244/EIJ-D-15-00467 Feb 20, 2018
Design and principle of operation of the HeartMate PHP (percutaneous heart pump)
Van Mieghem NM et al
free
45.3

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01126 Aug 29, 2019
New-generation mechanical circulatory support during high-risk PCI: a cross-sectional analysis
Ameloot K et al
free
X

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

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved