Comparison Of Drug-eluting Stents Versus Drug-coated Balloons For The Treatment Of In-stent Restenosis

Obejective The study was aimed to compare the efficacy of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary stent restenosis through coronary angiography and clinical results,so as to provide guidance value for clinical work.Methods We selected patients with in-stent restenosis since 2015 to January2020 in my hospital,45 cases totally.According to the target lesions and the patients’ opinion,they were divided into two groups,the drug-eluting stents(DES,21)group and the drug-coated balloons(DCB,24)group.Then we collected and compared the general condition,the preoperative and postoperative data of coronary angiography and postoperative follow-up of 6 to 12 months,especially late lumen loss situation and its major adverse cardiovascular events to conduct a retrospective analysis.We used IBM SPSS Statistics21 software for statistical analysis.Results1.There were no significant statistical differences in baseline data between the two groups,including gender,age,smoking history,history of diabetes,history of hyperlipidemia and history of hypertension(P > 0.01).2.There are significant benefits from both treatment regimens.The minimum preoperative lumen diameter of the DES group and the DCB group was(0.89±0.42)mm VS(0.97 ± 0.38)mm,the degree of stenosis was(82.90 ± 12.42)%VS(80.00±10.92)% and the minimum postoperative lumen diameter was(2.67±0.28)mm.Residual stenosis(14.67 ± 2.75)%VS 14.92 ± 2.91)%,postoperative improvement(1.71 ± 0.03)mm VS(1.69 ± 0.05)mm and(68.24 ±2.65)%VS(65.08 ± 2.37)% had no significant statistical difference(P > 0.01),indicating that the immediate efficacy of surgery was similar between the two groups.3.The average long-term response rate of the DES group and the DCB group at(10.07±1.70)months included the minimum lumen diameter of(2.39±0.32)mm VS(2.13 ± 0.25)mm and the stenosis degree of(19.62 ± 3.22)% VS(25.58 ±6.41)% and long-term lumen loss(0.28 ± 0.07)mm vs.DCB group(0.46 ±0.17)mm,DES group was superior(P < 0.01).4.There was no statistically significant difference in safety and effectiveness between the two groups(P > 0.05).There was 1 MACE event and 1 massive gastrointestinal bleeding event in the DES group,and 2 MACE events in the DCB group,but no major gastrointestinal bleeding event.Conclusions Both the DES group and the DCB group could benefit immediately from the operation,but the DES group had more advantages in the late lumen loss and the long-term effectiveness of the operation,and there was no significant statistical difference in the long-term safety and effectiveness between the two groups.In clinical application,the appropriate treatment plan should be selected according to the target lesion and the specific condition of the patient.