<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>331(12)</volume><submitter>Yeh RW</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Importance&lt;/h4>Drug-coated balloons offer a potentially beneficial treatment strategy for the management of coronary in-stent restenosis. However, none have been previously evaluated or approved for use in coronary circulation in the United States.&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>To evaluate whether a paclitaxel-coated balloon is superior to an uncoated balloon in patients with in-stent restenosis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.&lt;h4>Design, setting, and participants&lt;/h4>AGENT IDE, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, enrolled 600 patients with in-stent restenosis (lesion length &lt;26 mm and reference vessel diameter >2.0 mm to ≤4.0 mm) at 40 centers across the United States between May 2021 and August 2022. One-year clinical follow-up was completed on October 2, 2023.&lt;h4>Interventions&lt;/h4>Participants were randomized in a 2:1 allocation to undergo treatment with a paclitaxel-coated (n = 406) or an uncoated (n = 194) balloon.&lt;h4>Main outcomes and measures&lt;/h4>The primary end point of 1-year target lesion failure-defined as the composite of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or cardiac death-was tested for superiority.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Among 600 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 157 females [26.2%]; 42 Black [7%], 35 Hispanic [6%] individuals), 574 (95.7%) completed 1-year follow-up. The primary end point at 1 year occurred in 17.9% in the paclitaxel-coated balloon group vs 28.6% in the uncoated balloon group, meeting the criteria for superiority (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42-0.84]; 2-sided P = .003). Target lesion revascularization (13.0% vs 24.7%; HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.74]; P = .001) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (5.8% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.92]; P = .02) occurred less frequently among patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon. The rate of cardiac death was 2.9% vs 1.6% (HR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.49-6.28]; P = .38) in the coated vs uncoated balloon groups, respectively.&lt;h4>Conclusions and relevance&lt;/h4>Among patients undergoing coronary angioplasty for in-stent restenosis, a paclitaxel-coated balloon was superior to an uncoated balloon with respect to the composite end point of target lesion failure. Paclitaxel-coated balloons are an effective treatment option for patients with coronary in-stent restenosis.&lt;h4>Trial registration&lt;/h4>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04647253.</pubmed_abstract><journal>JAMA</journal><pagination>1015-1024</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10924708</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon vs Uncoated Balloon for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: The AGENT IDE Randomized Clinical Trial.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC10924708</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Krishnaswamy A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ahmed MI</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Shunk K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Latib A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sabapathy R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Neupane S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Agarwal H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ahmed M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Patel R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Grantham JA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jefferson B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Taylor A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ang L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Underwood P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Abbott J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Marso SP</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Grines C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Allocco DJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Reitman A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Shlofmitz R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yeh RW</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rudick S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>AGENT IDE Investigators</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bateman C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Diaz C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Levisay J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kirtane AJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zidar F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bateman CT</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jaffer F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tremmel J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dohad S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Saybolt M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Croce K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jefferson BK</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Stoler R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Moses J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tehrani B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kearney K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Brechtken J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lotun K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bachinsky W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Nicholson W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dixon W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Batchelor W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kimmelstiel C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Shah A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Altman J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tremmel JA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zidar FJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Abbott JD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yeh R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Alaswad K</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon vs Uncoated Balloon for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: The AGENT IDE Randomized Clinical Trial.</name><description>&lt;h4>Importance&lt;/h4>Drug-coated balloons offer a potentially beneficial treatment strategy for the management of coronary in-stent restenosis. However, none have been previously evaluated or approved for use in coronary circulation in the United States.&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>To evaluate whether a paclitaxel-coated balloon is superior to an uncoated balloon in patients with in-stent restenosis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.&lt;h4>Design, setting, and participants&lt;/h4>AGENT IDE, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, enrolled 600 patients with in-stent restenosis (lesion length &lt;26 mm and reference vessel diameter >2.0 mm to ≤4.0 mm) at 40 centers across the United States between May 2021 and August 2022. One-year clinical follow-up was completed on October 2, 2023.&lt;h4>Interventions&lt;/h4>Participants were randomized in a 2:1 allocation to undergo treatment with a paclitaxel-coated (n = 406) or an uncoated (n = 194) balloon.&lt;h4>Main outcomes and measures&lt;/h4>The primary end point of 1-year target lesion failure-defined as the composite of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or cardiac death-was tested for superiority.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Among 600 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 157 females [26.2%]; 42 Black [7%], 35 Hispanic [6%] individuals), 574 (95.7%) completed 1-year follow-up. The primary end point at 1 year occurred in 17.9% in the paclitaxel-coated balloon group vs 28.6% in the uncoated balloon group, meeting the criteria for superiority (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42-0.84]; 2-sided P = .003). Target lesion revascularization (13.0% vs 24.7%; HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.74]; P = .001) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (5.8% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.92]; P = .02) occurred less frequently among patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon. The rate of cardiac death was 2.9% vs 1.6% (HR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.49-6.28]; P = .38) in the coated vs uncoated balloon groups, respectively.&lt;h4>Conclusions and relevance&lt;/h4>Among patients undergoing coronary angioplasty for in-stent restenosis, a paclitaxel-coated balloon was superior to an uncoated balloon with respect to the composite end point of target lesion failure. Paclitaxel-coated balloons are an effective treatment option for patients with coronary in-stent restenosis.&lt;h4>Trial registration&lt;/h4>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04647253.</description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Mar</publication><modification>2026-06-02T22:58:47.42Z</modification><creation>2025-04-03T23:55:43.334Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC10924708</accession><cross_references><pubmed>38460161</pubmed><doi>10.1001/jama.2024.1361</doi></cross_references></HashMap>