Letter by Alfonso et al regarding article, "Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter versus paclitaxel-coated stent for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis".

BACKGROUND Treatment of in-stent restenosis with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter as compared with plain balloon angioplasty has shown surprisingly low late lumen loss at 6 months and fewer major adverse cardiac events up to 2 years. We compared the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent as the current standard of care. METHODS AND RESULTS One hundred thirty-one patients with coronary in-stent restenosis were randomly assigned to treatment by a paclitaxel-coated balloon (3 microg/mm2) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent. The main inclusion criteria encompassed diameter stenosis of > or =70% and < or =22 mm in length, with a vessel diameter of 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The primary end point was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. At 6 months follow-up, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.38+/-0.61 mm in the drug-eluting stent group versus 0.17+/-0.42 mm (P=0.03) in the drug-coated balloon group, resulting in a binary restenosis rate of 12 of 59 (20%) versus 4 of 57 (7%; P=0.06). At 12 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events were 22% and 9%, respectively (P=0.08). This difference was primarily due to the need for target lesion revascularization in 4 patients (6%) in the coated-balloon group, compared with 10 patients (15%) in the stent group (P=0.15). CONCLUSIONS Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with the paclitaxel-coated balloon was at least as efficacious and as well tolerated as the paclitaxel-eluting stent. For the treatment of in-stent restenosis, inhibition of re-restenosis does not require a second stent implantation.