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

On the same subject

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

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

May 17, 2011
From bench to Paccocath
Cremers B and Scheller B
free
Trending articles
203.9

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00089 Jun 11, 2021
Intracoronary optical coherence tomography: state of the art and future directions
Ali ZA et al
free
75.15

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00840 Sep 2, 2024
Aortic regurgitation: from mechanisms to management
Baumbach A et al
free
69.7

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00763 Dec 18, 2020
Twelve-month clinical and imaging outcomes of the uncaging coronary DynamX bioadaptor system
Verheye S et al
free
58.35

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00975 May 16, 2021
Revascularisation or medical therapy in elderly patients with acute anginal syndromes: the RINCAL randomised trial
de Belder A 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