Paclitaxel-coated balloon with bare-metal stenting in patients with chronic total occlusions in native coronary arteries

Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for De Novo Coronary Lesions: Current Status and Future Perspectives

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an anti-proliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application. Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

Research progress of drug eluting balloon in arterial circulatory system

The arterial circulatory system diseases are common in clinical practice, and their treatment options have been of great interest due to their high morbidity and mortality. Drug-eluting balloons, as a new type of endovascular interventional treatment option, can avoid the long-term implantation of metal stents and is a new type of angioplasty without stents, so drug-eluting balloons have better therapeutic effects in some arterial circulatory diseases and have been initially used in clinical practice. In this review, we first describe the development, process, and mechanism of drug-eluting balloons. Then we summarize the current studies on the application of drug-eluting balloons in coronary artery lesions, in-stent restenosis, and peripheral vascular disease. As well as the technical difficulties and complications in the application of drug-eluting balloons and possible management options, in order to provide ideas and help for future in-depth studies and provide new strategies for the treatment of more arterial system diseases.

Long-term outcomes of less drug-eluting stents by the use of drug-coated balloons in de novo coronary chronic total occlusion intervention: A multicenter observational study

Background

Data on drug-coated balloons (DCB) for de novo coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) are limited. We aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of substitution of drug-eluting stents (DES) by DCB.

Methods

We compared the outcomes of less DES strategy (DCB alone or combined with DES) and DES-only strategy in treating de novo coronary CTO in this prospective, observational, multicenter study. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death during 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were late lumen loss (LLL) and restenosis until 1-year after operation.

Results

Of the 591 eligible patients consecutively enrolled between January 2015 and December 2019, 281 (290 lesions) were treated with DCB (DCB-only or combined with DES) and 310 (319 lesions) with DES only. In the DCB group, 147 (50.7%) lesions were treated using DCB-only, and the bailout stenting rate was relatively low (3.1%). The average stent length per lesion in the DCB group was significantly shorter compared with the DES-only group (21.5 ± 25.5 mm vs. 54.5 ± 26.0 mm, p < 0.001). A total of 112 patients in the DCB group and 71 patients in the DES-only group (38.6% vs. 22.3%, p < 0.001) completed angiographic follow-up until 1-year, and LLL was much less in the DCB group (-0.08 ± 0.65 mm vs. 0.35 ± 0.62 mm, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in restenosis occurrence between the two groups (20.5% vs. 19.7%, p > 0.999). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of MACE at 3-year (11.8% vs. 12.0%, log-rank p = 0.688) was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

Percutaneous coronary intervention with DCB is a potential "stent-less" therapy for de novo CTO lesions with satisfactory long-term clinical results compared to the DES-only approach.

Novel application of drug-coated balloons in coronary heart disease: A narrative review

The incidence of coronary heart disease (CAD) has soared over the years, and coronary intervention has become an increasingly important therapeutic approach. The past decade has witnessed unprecedented developments in therapeutic medical instruments. Given that drug-coated balloons bring many benefits, they are indicated for an increasing number of conditions. In this article, we review the results of current clinical trials about drug-coated balloons and summarize their safety and clinical progression in different coronary artery diseases, laying the groundwork for basic research, and clinical therapeutics of this patient population.

Computational Pressure-Fluid Dynamics Applied to Index of Microcirculatory Resistance, Predicting the Prognosis of Drug-Coated Balloons Compared With Drug-Eluting Stents in STEMI Patients

Background: The impairment of microvascular injury on prognosis has increasingly drawn extensive awareness along with the high morbidity and mortality of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) over recent years. The prognostic significance of computational pressure-fluid dynamics applied to index of microcirculatory resistance, derived from coronary angiography (CPFD-caIMR) in microvascular injury evaluation of STEMI patients remained inconclusive.

Methods: A total of 213 patients who met the inclusion criteria were selected retrospectively from 1003 STEMI patients from February 2018 to February 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was thereafter finished. CPFD-caIMR of all patients was obtained off-line using the software (FlashAngio, Rainmed Ltd., Suzhou, China) after PPCI. The primary endpoint was to compare the CPFD-caIMR and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) between drug-coated balloons (DCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) groups. The correlation between CPFD-caIMR and MACEs was analyzed, and the prognosis of patients with STEMI was evaluated by CPFD-caIMR by multivariate regression analysis.

Results: Totally 213 STEMI patients with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) were included, of whom 84 patients accepted DCB and 129 patients accepted DES respectively. Baseline characteristics and CPFD-caIMR were comparable between DCB and DES groups after PSM (62 patients in each group). CPFD-caIMR was not significantly different between two groups (DES vs. DCB: mean difference: 2.26, 95% CI -4.05 to 8.57, p = 0.45), and so was it when re-grouped by whether CPFD-caIMR > 40U or not (DES vs. DCB: 34.17% vs. 27.16%, p = 0.29). After a follow-up of 1 year, more MACEs occurred in DES group than DCB group (relative risk: 2.50, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.02, p = 0.04). The predictors of MACEs by multi-variate analysis found that, only time from symptom to balloon (p = 0.03) and time from door to balloon (p < 0.01) were independent predictors of MACEs, independent of treatment with DCB or DES intervention. Furthermore, CPFD-caIMR > 40U became an independent predictor of the combined events including cardiovascular deaths or heart failure readmission irrespective of PSM (odds ratio: 4.07, 95% CI: 1.06 to 7.66, p = 0.04).

Conclusion: CPFD-caIMR was a promising method for prognosis, which can predict CV death or heart failure readmission in STEMI patients. DCB was a possible strategy in PPCI of STEMI patients, not inferior to DES based on microvascular injury evaluated by CPFD-caIMR.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Catheter

Drug-eluting balloons currently constitute a therapeutic tool used in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Long-term results remain unknown. We evaluated the prognosis of PCI using a second generation paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) in real-world patients. We included all PCI with PEB in de novo or in-stent restenosis coronary lesions performed in our unit from March 2009 to March 2019. We assessed the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rate after a median follow-up of 42 months. Consecutive patients (n = 320) with 386 lesions were included; 46.9% presented with stable angina and 53.1% acute coronary syndromes; 52.6% of the lesions were in-stent restenosis and 47.3% de novo lesions with a mean diameter of 2.4 ± 0.5 mm. A bare metal stent was implanted in 6.7% and a drug-eluting stent in 8.5% of patients. The MACE rate was 8%: 10 (2.6%) cardiovascular deaths, 13 (3.4%) myocardial infarctions, and 16 (4.1%) target lesion revascularization. The all-cause death rate was 5.2%. No cases of thrombosis were recorded. In conclusion, PEB was a safe and effective tool to treat in-stent restenosis and de novo coronary lesions, especially small vessel disease, during long-term follow-up.

Provisional drug-coated balloon treatment guided by physiology on de novo coronary lesion

Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have become the mainstay of percutaneous coronary intervention, late and very late stent thrombosis remains a concern. Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have the advantage of preserving the anti-restenotic benefits of DES while minimizing potential long-term safety concerns. Currently the two methods to ensure successful DCB treatment of a stenotic lesion are angiography or physiology-guided DCB application. This review will evaluate these two methods based on previous evidence and make suggestions on how to perform DCB treatment more efficiently and safely.

Drug-coated balloons for coronary artery disease: current concepts and controversies

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are a novel development for percutaneous coronary intervention. The first successful application was in-stent restenosis but in recent years, strong evidence has been released for its use in native small-vessels disease. Additional applications such as acute myocardial infarction, chronic total occlusion and bifurcation lesions are still under investigation. This article reviews the key studies evaluating the role of DCBs in several settings and reports on interesting cases where DCBs showed positive results for high-risk patients with neoplasm, as well as with high bleeding risk, planned surgery or renal injury. We also highlight a new biodegradable therapy for coronary bifurcation treatment, in which a bioresorbable vascular scaffold is implanted in the main branch, completed with a DCB angioplasty in the side branch when a treatment is deemed necessary.

Drug-coated balloon treatment in coronary artery disease: Recommendations from an Asia-Pacific Consensus Group

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is currently the leading cause of death globally, and the prevalence of this disease is growing more rapidly in the Asia-Pacific region than in Western countries. Although the use of metal coronary stents has rapidly increased thanks to the advancement of safety and efficacy of newer generation drug eluting stent (DES), patients are still negatively affected by some the inherent limitations of this type of treatment, such as stent thrombosis or restenosis, including neoatherosclerosis, and the obligatory use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with unknown optimal duration. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment is based on a leave-nothing-behind concept and therefore it is not limited by stent thrombosis and long-term DAPT; it directly delivers an anti-proliferative drug which is coated on a balloon after improving coronary blood flow. At present, DCB treatment is recommended as the first-line treatment option in metal stent-related restenosis linked to DES and bare metal stent. For de novo coronary lesions, the application of DCB treatment is extended further, for conditions such as small vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, and chronic total occlusion lesions, and others. Recently, several reports have suggested that fractional flow reserve guided DCB application was safe for larger coronary artery lesions and showed good long-term outcomes. Therefore, the aim of these recommendations of the consensus group was to provide adequate guidelines for patients with CAD based on objective evidence, and to extend the application of DCB to a wider variety of coronary diseases and guide their most effective and correct use in actual clinical practice.

Drug-eluting balloon: design, technology and clinical aspects

A drug-eluting balloon is a non-stent technology in which the effective homogenous delivery of anti-proliferative drugs is processed by the vessel wall through an inflated balloon. This is done to restore luminal vascularity in order to treat atherosclerosis, in-stent restenosis and reduce the risk of late thrombosis without implanting a permanent foreign object. The balloon technology relies on the concept of targeted drug delivery, which helps in the rapid healing of the vessel wall and prevents the proliferation of smooth muscle cells. Several drug eluting devices in the form of coated balloons are currently in clinical use, namely DIOR^®, PACCOCATH^®, SeQuent^®Please and IN.PACT™. The device varies in terms of the material used for making the balloon, the coating techniques, the choice of coated drug and the release pattern of the drug at the site. This review gives an insight into the evolution, rationale and comparison of the marketed drug-eluting balloons. Here, different coating techniques have been analysed for the application and critical analysis of available DEB technologies, and a technical comparison has been done.

Paclitaxel-coated balloon plus bare-metal stent for de-novo coronary artery disease: final 5-year results of a randomized prospective multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

The PERfECT Stent Study compared paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty plus bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation with BMS alone in de-novo lesions in native coronary artery disease. Angiographic follow-up after 6 months showed the superiority of the additional PCB. We evaluated a potential late catch-up phenomenon with the use of PCB.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized PERfECT Stent trial, 120 patients were assigned to either PCB angioplasty plus BMS implantation or BMS alone. For BMS, the endothelial progenitor cell capturing stent was used. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for 3 months. The clinical endpoint for 5-year follow-up was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction attributed to the target vessel, or target lesion revascularization. The follow-up rate after 5 years was 97%. Baseline and procedural characteristics did not differ. At the 5-year follow-up, clinically driven target lesion revascularization was 23.2% in the BMS group versus 15% with PCB plus BMS (P=0.26). The clinical endpoint (major adverse cardiac event) was 30.4% with BMS and with 23.5% lower with PCB plus BMS. No definite or probable stent thrombosis was found in either group with a dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months for the total period.

CONCLUSION

PCB angioplasty plus BMS was superior to BMS alone for the treatment of de-novo lesions. The combined clinical endpoint was lower with PCB plus BMS at 6 months and remained lower after 5 years. There was no late catch-up phenomenon (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT 00732953).

Drug-coated Balloon-only Angioplasty for Native Coronary Disease Instead of Stents

Coronary angioplasty has vastly improved both in technique and devices since the first angioplasty in 1977. Currently, stent implantation is used almost ubiquitously, despite being developed originally to treat vessel threatening dissections. Newer concepts including absorbable polymers or fully bioabsorbable scaffolds are constantly being developed. However, we find the concept of no permanent implant whilst still delivering a chemotherapeutic drug to reduce restenosis very attractive given the long term implications of a metallic stent, which include restenosis, late thrombosis and neo-atheroma formation. The use of a drug-coated balloon-only approach to de novo angioplasty will avoid the late thrombotic problems whilst also reducing early restenosis, simplifying the procedure and reducing the dual antiplatelet duration to 1 month. We review the current literature and highlight our practice with regard to use of drug-coated balloons in treatment of de novo coronary artery disease.

Drug-Eluting Balloons in the Treatment of Coronary De Novo Lesions: A Comprehensive Review

Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) have emerged as a new application in percutaneous coronary intervention. DEBs have proven successful in the treatment of in-stent restenosis, but their role in de novo lesions is less clear. This paper provides a review of the current studies where DEBs have been used in coronary de novo lesions, either as part of a DEB-only strategy or in combination with another device, mainly a bare metal stent (BMS). By searching Pubmed and Embase we were able to identify 52 relevant studies, differing in design, intervention, and clinical setting, including patients with small vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, complex long lesions, acute myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and elderly. In 23 studies, a DEB was combined with a BMS, 25 studies used a DEB-only strategy with only provisional BMS implantation, and four studies combined a DEB with a drug-eluting stent (DES). In the vast majority of studies, DEB in combination with BMS does not seem to improve clinical or angiographic outcome compared with DES, whereas a DEB-only strategy seems promising, especially when predilatation and geographical mismatch are taken into account. A lower risk of recurrent thrombosis with DEB compared with DES is not evident from the current studies. In conclusion, the main indication for DEB seems to be small vessel disease, especially in clinical scenarios in which a contraindication to dual antiplatelet therapy exists. The main approach should be a DEB-only strategy with only provisional bailout stenting, which has shown interesting results in different clinical scenarios. In general, larger randomized controlled studies with prolonged follow-up comparing DEB with best in class DES are warranted. Technical developments of DEBs including the use of different drugs might potentially improve the efficacy of such treatment.

Clinical results of single and multiple bioresorbable drug-eluting scaffolds for treatment of de-novo coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

Data on multiple bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for the treatment of coronary lesions are limited. We compared clinical results after implantation of single or multiple BVS for the treatment of de-novo coronary artery disease.

METHODS

We enrolled 236 patients with 311 lesions treated with Absorb BVS. Quantitative coronary angiography before and after scaffold implantation was performed. All lesions were predilated. Absorb was implanted with slow inflation and 81% were postdilated with a high-pressure balloon. Patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 6 months for stable angina pectoris and for 12 months for acute coronary syndrome. Patients were clinically followed for 12 months. Acute gain was 1.39±0.47 mm. Multiple scaffolds per lesion were implanted in 23.8% (N=74/311 lesions). The mean scaffold length was 21 mm for single and 48 mm (range 28-112 mm) for multiple BVS. Periprocedural myocardial infarction (13.5 vs. 4.6%, P<0.013) and target lesion revascularization (6.8 vs. 0.8%; P=0.003) were significantly higher in the multiple-scaffold group compared with the single-scaffold group. There was no definite scaffold thrombosis. (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02162056).

CONCLUSION

Target lesion revascularization within 12 months and periprocedural myocardial infarction were higher for lesions treated with multiple scaffolds compared with lesions treated with single BVS.

Impact of drug-eluting balloon (pre- or post-) dilation on neointima formation in de novo lesions treated by bare-metal stent: the IN-PACT CORO trial

The efficacy of DEB in modifying the high restenosis risk associated with BMS implantation is doubtful. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) may allow precise assessment of neointimal formation after stent implantation. We performed a single-center, prospective, 1:2 randomized trial comparing BMS implantation alone (BMS group) vs. additional DEB (DEB group). DEB patients were further randomized 1:1 to DEB before stenting (pre-DEB group), or after stenting (post-DEB group). Primary endpoint was OCT-assessed neointimal hyperplasia (expressed both as mean in-stent neointimal area and as percentage obstruction of the mean stent area) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of uncovered and malapposed stent struts. Thirty patients were enrolled and randomized to BMS (n = 10), pre-DEB (n = 10), post-DEB (n = 10). At 6-month OCT follow-up, DEB significantly reduced neointimal area compared with BMS: mean neointimal area 2.01 ± 0.89 vs. 3.03 ± 1.07 mm(2) (p = 0.02), percentage area obstruction 24.56 ± 12.50 vs. 37.51 ± 12.26 % (p = 0.02). The percentage of uncovered and malapposed stent struts did not differ significantly between BMS and DEB. In the comparison between pre-DEB and post-DEB, no significant difference was observed for both primary and secondary endpoints. In de novo coronary lesions treated with BMS, DEB use could be associated with a mild reduction in neointimal hyperplasia at 6 months; this effect could be unrelated to the timing of DEB dilation (pre- or post-stenting).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Identifier: NCT01057563.

The current status of drug-coated balloons in percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions

Through continued innovation, percutaneous treatment of coronary and peripheral stenoses has evolved rapidly since balloon angioplasty was first introduced three decades ago. Significant advances were made with the introduction of bare metal stents and subsequently drug-eluting stents, which expanded the possibility of successful revascularisation in complicated lesions. Despite these advantages, efforts are still ongoing to improve patient outcomes further. In recent years, drug-coated balloons have emerged as an exciting technology developed to overcome the limitations faced by drug-eluting stents, such as stent thrombosis and dependency on prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, and may prove efficacious in complex subsets such as small vessels and diffuse lesions where stent results are suboptimal. Several drug-coated balloons developed for coronary and peripheral applications were evaluated recently in preclinical and clinical studies with encouraging results. Drug-coated balloons have proven effective in treating in-stent restenosis; however, there is accumulating evidence on their utility in other clinical scenarios. We present a timely review of the mechanisms of action, key preclinical studies, emerging clinical indications, current clinical trial results, and future perspectives of this novel drug-coated balloon technology as it seeks to establish its role in percutaneous intervention.

Drug-eluting balloons in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

We compared efficacy of bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting balloon (DEB) combination vs BMS alone, in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina (UA) were randomized to BMS only or BMS+DEB group. Angiographic follow-up was performed after 6 months. The primary endpoints were binary in-stent restenosis (ISR) and late lumen loss (LLL) and the secondary endpoints were target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), and new acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients were enrolled, 44 (BMS) and 41 (BMS+DEB). The median age was 67 (36-84) years and 68 (80%) were male. Fifty-two patients (61.2%) had NSTEMI and 33 patients (38.8%) UA. There was no difference in patient demographics, risk factors, and clinical characteristics, except for more smokers in the BMS+DEB group 18/41 (43.9%) vs 9/44 (20.5%). At follow-up, no significant difference in binary ISR was found; p=0.593, but LLL was significantly lower in the BMS+DEB group 0.68 (0.00-2.15) mm vs 0.22 (0.00-2.35) mm; p=0.002. The difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate combining TLR, ST, and ACS, between the groups was also non-significant, 29.5% (BMS) vs 24.4% (BMS+DEB); p=0.835. One patient had a subacute ST (BMS+DEB) due to clopidogrel resistance.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with BMS+DEB combination for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome had significantly less LLL in comparison to patients treated with BMS alone but without an impact on patient clinical outcomes.