Outcomes with drug‐coated balloons in small‐vessel coronary artery disease

Comparison Between Drug-Coated Balloon and Stents in Large De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCT Data

PURPOSE

Although a number of studies involving small-vessel de novo coronary disease showed clinical benefits of drug-coated balloons (DCB), the role of DCB in large vessel lesions is still unclear.

METHODS

We searched main electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB with stents for large vessel de novo coronary artery disease. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE), composite cardiovascular death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

This study included 7 RCTs with 770 participants. DCB were associated with a marked risk reduction in MACE [Risk Ratio (RR): 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 to 0.97; P = 0.04], TLR (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.14; P = 0.10), and late lumen loss [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.57; 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.05; P = 0.03] as compared with stents. There is no significant difference in MI (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.54; P = 0.27), CD (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.78; P = 0.19), and minimal lumen diameter (SMD: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.72 to 0.05; P = 0.08) between groups. In subgroup analyses, the risk reduction of MACE persisted in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.89; P = 0.03), and patients receiving DCB vs. bare metal stent (RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.73; P = 0.01). In addition, there was no significant difference between the DCB group and the drug eluting stent group for MACE (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.60; P = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

DCB may be an effective therapeutic option in patients with large vessel de novo coronary artery disease.

Drug-coated balloon: an effective alternative to stent strategy in small-vessel coronary artery disease-a meta-analysis

Background

Small-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently observed in coronary angiography and linked to a higher risk of lesion failure and restenosis. Currently, treatment of small vessels is not standardized while having drug-eluting stents (DES) or drug-coated balloons (DCBs) as possible strategies. We aimed to conduct a meta-analytic approach to assess the effectiveness of treatment strategies and outcomes for small-vessel CAD.

Methods

Comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies reporting treatment strategies of small-vessel CAD with a reference diameter of ≤3.0 mm. Target lesion revascularization (TLR), target lesion thrombosis, all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as clinical outcomes. Outcomes from single-arm and randomized studies based on measures by means of their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were compared using a meta-analytic approach. Statistical significance was assumed if CIs did not overlap.

Results

Thirty-seven eligible studies with a total of 31,835 patients with small-vessel CAD were included in the present analysis. Among those, 28,147 patients were treated with DES (24 studies) and 3,299 patients with DCB (18 studies). Common baseline characteristics were equally distributed in the different studies. TLR rate was 4% in both treatment strategies [0.04; 95% CI 0.03-0.05 (DES) vs. 0.03-0.07 (DCB)]. MI occurred in 3% of patients receiving DES and in 2% treated with DCB [0.03 (0.02-0.04) vs. 0.02 (0.01-0.03)]. All-cause mortality was 3% in the DES group [0.03 (0.02-0.05)] compared with 1% in the DCB group [0.01 (0.00-0.03)]. Approximately 9% of patients with DES developed MACE vs. 4% of patients with DCB [0.09 (0.07-0.10) vs. 0.04 (0.02-0.08)]. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant impact of reference vessel diameter on outcomes.

Conclusion

This large meta-analytic approach demonstrates similar clinical and angiographic results between treatment strategies with DES and DCB in small-vessel CAD. Therefore, DES may be waived in small coronary arteries when PCI is performed with DCB.

Drug-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease - A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have shown promising results for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and small vessel disease (SVD). However, data comparing the treatment efficacy of different DCBs are limited.Methods and Results: AGENT Japan is a prospective randomized controlled trial that compares the Agent balloon coated with a low-dose formulation of paclitaxel (2 μg/mm²) to the SeQuent Please paclitaxel-coated balloon (3 μg/mm²) for the treatment of SVD. Patients with target lesion length ≤28 mm and reference diameter between ≥2.00 and <3.00 mm were randomized 2 : 1 for treatment with Agent (n=101) or SeQuent Please (n=49). This trial also includes a separate single-arm substudy evaluating the clinical safety and effectiveness of Agent in patients with ISR. The primary endpoint of 6-month target lesion failure (TLF) was observed in 3.0% of Agent and 0.0% of SeQuent Please patients (difference=3.0%; 97.5% upper confidence bound [UCB]=9.57%, which is less than the prespecified margin of 13.2%; P_{non-inferiority}=0.0012). There were no deaths or thrombosis, and angiographic and quality-of-life outcomes were comparable between groups. The AGENT Japan ISR substudy (n=30) primary endpoint was met because the one-sided 97.5% UCB for 6-month TLF (3.3%) was significantly less than the study success criterion of 15.1% (97.5% UCB=9.8%; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this study demonstrate good clinical outcomes with the Agent DCB when used to treat patients with SVD or ISR.

Small-vessel Coronary Angioplasty – Past, Present, and Future

Small-vessel disease (SVD) is an important subset of the population with coronary artery disease which may account for up to 30–70% according to different series. The challenges of SVD interventions are first to detect the true small-vessel size along with the true length of the lesion by intravascular imaging, then to decide about the interventional strategies as there is difficulty in delivering the stent to the lesion, dissections, under expansions of the stent during percutaneous coronary intervention with increased incidence of restenosis, and need for revascularization on the long term as well. Special attention is to be paid to this subset of patients of SVD as the treatment strategies need to be improvised than simple balloon dilatation or stenting with drug-eluting stents. At present, drug-coated or eluting balloon emerging as an improvised strategy for treating these patients with intravascular imaging. This article concentrates on the latest updates in SVD treatment.

Clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a well-established role in revascularization for coronary artery disease. We performed network meta-analysis to provide evidence on optimal intervention strategies for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries.

Materials and methods

Enrolled studies were randomized clinical trials that compared different intervention strategies [balloon angioplasty (BA), biolimus-coated balloon (BCB), bare-metal stent (BMS), new-generation drug-eluting stent (New-DES), older generation sirolimus-eluting stent (Old-SES), paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB), and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)] for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Results

A total of 23 randomized clinical trials comparing seven intervention devices were analyzed. In terms of the primary outcome, New-DES was the intervention device with the best efficacy [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 89.1%; mean rank, 1.7], and the Old-SES [risk ratio (RR), 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–2.64] and PCB (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.72–2.74) secondary to New-DES, but there was no statistically significant difference between these three intervention devices. All DES and PCB were superior to BMS and BA for MACE in both primary and sensitivity analysis. For secondary outcomes, there was no association between all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) with any intervention strategy, and additionally, the findings of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were similar to the primary outcomes.

Conclusion

Paclitaxel-coated balloon yielded similar outcomes to New-DES for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries. Therefore, this network meta-analysis may provide potential support for PCB as a feasible, effective, and safe alternative intervention strategy for the revascularization of small coronary arteries.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42022338433].

Comparison between drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in very small coronary artery interventions

The optimal management of very small vessel (reference diameter from 2.0 to 2.25 mm) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) for de-novo very small vessel interventions. We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who received very small vessel PCI with a DCB or DES between January 2018 and March 2021. The outcome measures were the incidence of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) within 1 year after PCI. MACCEs were defined as the composite of ischemia-driven TLR, all-cause death, non-fatal acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure requiring hospitalization. A total of 205 patients undergoing PCI with a DCB or DES were enrolled in this study. The procedural complication rate was 2.5% in the DES group and 1.7% in the DCB group (P = 1.000). After 1-year of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of TLR was 7.2% in the DCB group and 4.9% in the DES group (P = 0.530). The cumulative incidence of MACCEs was 10.6% in the DCB group and 12.7% in the DES group (P = 0.769). Only female gender, acute coronary syndrome on presentation, and dual antiplatelet therapy duration < 3 months were significantly associated with MACCEs at 1 year, but the use of DCB or DES was not. The use of DCBs or DESs in de novo very small vessel intervention was not associated with different outcomes at 1 year.

Utilization of Drug-Coated Balloons for the Treatment of Coronary Lesions in the Elderly Population

Introduction: The use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) has become more prevalent in the past few years for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and de novo lesions. The absence of foreign polymer implantations potentially shortens the duration of dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT), which can be beneficial for the elderly population. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the use of DCBs for the treatment of coronary lesions in elderly patients as compared to the younger population. Materials and methods: A database of 446 consecutive patients who underwent a procedure of DCB inflation in our institution was divided into two groups, below 70 years old and above 80 years old. We compared and analyzed the endpoints of total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular (CV) death, and all-cause mortality in both groups. Results: The difference in MACE between the two age groups was non-significant (p = 0.225); the difference in cardiovascular death was also non-significant (p = 0.086). All-cause mortality was significantly different (p < 0.0001) and can be attributed to the age of the patients. Conclusion: The utilization of DCBs for the treatment of coronary lesions may be as safe and effective for the elderly population as for the younger population and may allow a shorter period of DAPT therapy, which can lower the risk of bleeding.

Impact of directional coronary atherectomy followed by drug-coated balloon strategy to avoid the complex stenting for bifurcation lesions

Although the simple single stenting rather than complex double stenting is recommended on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions, double stenting cannot always be avoided. We investigated the impact of directional coronary atherectomy (DCA), followed by drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment to reduce the number of stents and avoid complex stenting in PCI for bifurcation lesions and short-term patency. DCA treatment without stents was attempted for 27 bifurcation lesions in 25 patients, of those, 26 bifurcation lesions in 24 patients were successfully treated and 3-month follow-up angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed. Sixteen lesions (59.3%) were related to left main trunk distal bifurcations, and 7 (25.9%) were true bifurcation lesions. Among the true bifurcation lesions, 4 lesions (57.1%) needed 1 stent, and the other 3 lesions (42.9%) needed no stents. Among the non-true bifurcation lesions, 1 lesion (5.0%) needed bailout stent and other lesions (95.0%) needed no stents. According to DCA followed by DCB treatment, the angiographic mean diameter stenosis improved from 65.5 ± 15.0% to 7.8 ± 9.8%, and the mean plaque area in intravascular ultrasound improved from 80.4 ± 10.5% to 39.0 ± 11.5%, respectively. Angiographic and OCT late lumen loss values were 0.2 ± 0.6 mm and 1.4 ± 1.9 mm, respectively. No patient had in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and 3-month MACE. In conclusion, compared with standard provisional side branch stenting strategy, DCA followed by DCB treatment might reduce the number of stents, avoid complex stenting for major bifurcation lesions and provide good short-term outcomes.

Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Stent for de novo Non-small Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been an attractive option in de novo vessels. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB vs. stent for treating de novo lesions in non-small vessels.

Methods: Studies in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched (from their commencement to March 2021). This meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.3.

Results: A total of 3 random controlled trials (RCTs) with 255 patients and 2 observational studies (OS) with 265 patients were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. It could be observed that DCB presented no significant difference in cardiac death (CD) (RR 0.33, 95% CI [0.01, 8.29], p = 0.50 in OS), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.49, 95% CI [0.09, 2.50], p = 0.39 in RCT), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR 0.64, 95% CI [0.19, 2.18], p = 0.47 in RCT) (RR 1.72, 95% CI [0.56, 5.26], p = 0.34 in OS), and late lumen loss (LLL) (SMD −0.48, 95% CI [−1.32, 0.36], p = 0.26 in RCT) for de novo non-small coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with stents, whereas minimal lumen diameter (MLD) including MLD1 (SMD −0.67, 95% CI [−0.92 −0.42], p < 0.00001 in RCT) and MLD2 (SMD −0.36, 95% CI [−0.61 −0.11], p = 0.004 in RCT) was smaller in DCB group.

Conclusion: This systematic review showed that DCB might provide a promising way on de novo non-small coronary artery disease compared with stents. However, more RCTs are still needed to further prove the benefits of the DCB strategy.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes with drug-coated balloons vs. stenting in acute myocardial infarction

The role of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies comparing the outcomes of DCBs vs. stenting in AMI patients. Four studies with 497 patients (534 lesions) were included (three randomized controlled trials and one observational study). During a mean follow-up of 9 months (range 6-12 months), DCBs were associated with similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (5% vs. 4.4%; OR 1.24, 95% CI: [0.34, 4.51], p = 0.74, I² = 35%), all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; OR 077, 95% CI: [0.15, 3.91], p = 0.75, I² = 25%), cardiac death (0.01% vs. 0.02%; OR 0.64, 95% CI: [0.16, 2.64], p = 0.54), myocardial infarction (0% vs. 1.4%; OR 0.18, 95% CI: [0.01, 3.56], p = 0.26), and target lesion revascularization (3.7% vs. 2%; OR 1.74, 95% CI: [0.42, 7.13], p = 0.44, I² = 17%) compared with stenting. During a mean follow-up of 7 months (range 6-9 months), DCBs had similar late lumen loss compared with stenting (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI [- 0.21-0.28], p = 0.77, I² = 92%). In patients with AMI, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of clinical and angiographic outcomes between AMI patients treated with DCB and DES. Larger studies with longer-term follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of DCBs in this setting.

Long term outcome after treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions using three different drug coated balloons

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of three currently available drug coated balloons (DCB) for the treatment of de-novo coronary lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry. Between 2009 and 2017, three currently available DCB brands used in the treatment of de novo lesions were included. Outcomes were clinically driven restenosis and target lesion thrombosis (TLT) (per device) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization (per patient) at 4 years. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to adjust for differences.

RESULTS

We included 6715 lesions treated with DCBs, 4483 SeQuent® Please (S-DCB), 1071 IN.PACT Falcon (I-DCB) and 1161 Pantera® Lux (P-DCB), in 5670 patients. The mean DCB diameter was 2.4 mm. Bailout stenting occurred in 6.7% of lesions. Angiographic success was 98.5%. The overall cumulative rate of restenosis was 5.5% (299 events). The risk for reported restenosis did not significantly differ between I-DCB vs S-DCB, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.34, P-DCB vs S-DCB aHR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.23 and I-DCB vs P-DCB aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.72-1.68. The cumulative risk for TLT was 0.8% in all three DCBs. The risk for MACE or individual components of MACE did not differ between the three patient-groups.

CONCLUSION

In de novo coronary lesions, we found comparable long-term efficacy with three currently available DCB brands. DCB angioplasty was feasible with low risk for long-term restenosis and TLT.

Leave Nothing Behind: Treatment of Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease with Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty

PURPOSE

Intracranial atherosclerosis disease (ICAD) is an essential cause of stroke. The characteristics of effective treatment include low periprocedural risk and a sustained treatment effect. Angioplasty with a conventional balloon for ICAD is safe but has a dauntingly high restenosis rate. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty might reduce the risk of restenosis while maintaining the overall safety of the procedure.

METHODS

This study included symptomatic ICAD patients with more than 70% stenosis. Intermediate catheters were placed distally, and the lesions were predilated with a conventional balloon, followed by a DCB (SeQuent Please, B Braun, Melsungen, Germany). The primary endpoint was any stroke or death within 30 days or ipsilateral ischemic stroke thereafter. The secondary endpoint was arterial restenosis of more than 50% during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 39 sessions of DCB angioplasty were performed for 39 lesions in 35 patients between October 2015 and April 2018 in a single center. All of the DCBs could be navigated to the lesions. Major periprocedural complications were noted in two patients (5.7%, 2/35), and minor periprocedural complications were also noted in two patients (5.7%, 2/35). The average percentages of stenosis of the lesions were 76.6% ± 7% before treatment, 32.4% ± 11.2% after DCB angioplasty, and 25% ± 16% at follow-up. Stenosis over 50% was present in 3 lesions during the follow-up period (8.3%, 3/36).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the application of DCBs to treat ICAD patients was feasible and safe. A larger scale clinical trial is warranted to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of this treatment.

Comparing efficacy of drug-coated balloon-only approach and stent approach in treating de novo coronary artery lesions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been a novel alternative therapeutic strategy in de novo coronary artery diseases. However, the clinical feasibility of the DCB-only approach in treating small vessel disease remains controversial, while study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the DCB-only approach versus stent approaches in treating large vessel disease is limited.

METHODS

From February 2020 to May 2020, we will search Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chongqing VIP Database for eligible trials comparing DCB with drug-eluting stents for treatment of de novo lesions in both small vessel disease and large vessel disease. The primary endpoint is major adverse cardiac events (MACE); the secondary endpoints include in-lesion late lumen loss, binary restenosis, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), mortality and target vessel thrombosis. Meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software (V.5.3).

RESULTS

The results will be presented as risk ratios for dichotomous data, and weighted mean differences for continuous data.

CONCLUSION

We will assess outcomes of the DCB-only approach in the treatment of de novo lesions compared with the stent approach.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020164484.

Outcomes in Patients Treated With Thin-Strut, Very Thin-Strut, or Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Coronary Vessels: A Prespecified Analysis of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial

Importance

Stenting small-vessel lesions has an increased adverse cardiovascular event risk. Very thin-strut or ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents might reduce this risk, but data are scarce.

Objective

To assess the outcome of all-comer patients with small coronary vessel lesions treated with 3 dissimilar types of drug-eluting stents.

Design

This is a prespecified substudy of the Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-eluting Stents in an All Comers Population (BIO-RESORT) trial, an investigator-initiated, randomized, patient-blinded comparative clinical drug-eluting stent trial. Patients treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents, very thin-strut everolimus-eluting stents, or previous-generation thin-strut zotarolimus-eluting stents were enrolled from December 2012 to August 2015. This multicenter trial was conducted in 4 Dutch centers for cardiac intervention. Of all 3514 all-comer BIO-RESORT participants, 1506 patients with treatment in at least 1 small-vessel lesion (reference vessel <2.5 mm) were included. Data were analyzed between September 2018 and February 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Target lesion failure at 3-year follow-up, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization, analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methods.

Results

In 1452 of 1506 participants (96.4%) (1057 men [70.2%]; 449 women [29.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [10.4] years), follow-up was available. Target lesion failure occurred in 36 of 525 patients (7.0%) treated with sirolimus-eluting stents, 46 of 496 (9.5%) with everolimus-eluting stents, and 48 of 485 (10.0%) with zotarolimus-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting vs zotarolimus-eluting hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .08; everolimus-eluting vs zotarolimus-eluting HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .72). There was a difference in target lesion revascularizations between sirolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting stents (2.1% vs 5.3%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.81; P = .009) that emerged after the first year of follow-up (1.0% vs 3.7%; P = .006); multivariate analysis showed that sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was independently associated with a lower target lesion revascularization rate at 3-year follow-up (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85; P = .02). In the everolimus-eluting stents, the revascularization rate was 4.0% (vs zotarolimus-eluting, HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.41-1.34; P = .31). There was no significant between-stent difference in cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis.

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients stented in small coronary vessels experienced fewer repeated revascularizations if treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents vs previous generation thin strut zotarolimus-eluting stents. Further research is required to evaluate the potential effect of particularly thin stent struts.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01674803.

Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes With Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

The role of drug‐coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions is not well established.

Methods and Results

Electronic databases and major conference proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared DCBs with stents or angioplasty for de novo coronary lesions. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization. Summary estimates were conducted using random‐effects analysis complemented by several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 2483 patients were included. At a mean follow up of 12 months, DCBs were associated with no difference in the incidence of target lesion revascularization as compared with alternative strategies (risk ratio [RR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.35–1.76). There was no difference in treatment effect based on the indication (ie, small‐vessel disease, myocardial infarction, bifurcation, or high bleeding risk) (P_interaction=0.22). DCBs were associated with lower target lesion revascularization compared with bare metal stents and similar target lesion revascularization compared with drug‐eluting stents (P_interaction=0.03). There was no difference between DCBs and control in terms of major adverse cardiac events, vessel thrombosis, or cardiovascular mortality. However, DCBs were associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25–0.90) and all‐cause mortality (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22–0.94).

Conclusions

In patients with de novo coronary lesions, use of DCBs was associated with comparable clinical outcomes irrespective of the indication or comparator device. DCBs had a similar rate of target lesion revascularization compared with drug‐eluting stents. A randomized trial powered for clinical outcomes and evaluating the role of DCBs for all‐comers is warranted.

Drug-coated Balloons for Small Coronary Vessel Interventions: A Literature Review

Newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic coronary artery disease. However, some lack of efficacy has been reported in small coronary arteries based on higher rates of target lesion restenosis, thrombosis and MI resulting in repeated interventions. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis in both bare metal stents and DES and they can deliver an anti-proliferative drug into the vessel wall without implanting a stent. DCBs are a promising technique for selected de novo coronary lesions, especially in small vessel disease. In this article, the current evidence for the treatment of small vessel disease with DCBs will be reviewed.

Role of Drug-coated Balloons in Small-vessel Coronary Artery Disease

Percutaneous coronary intervention of small-vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) remains challenging due to difficulties with device delivery and high restenosis rate, even with the use of newer-generation drug-eluting stents. Drug-coated balloons represent an attractive emerging percutaneous coronary intervention option in patients with SVD. Potential advantages of drug-coated balloons in SVD include enhanced deliverability because of their small profile, avoidance of foreign-body implantation, and shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Drug Coated Balloon-Only Strategy in De Novo Lesions of Large Coronary Vessels

Objectives

We analyzed the efficacy of drug coated balloons (DCB) as a stand-alone-therapy in de novo lesions of large coronary arteries. DCBs seem to be an attractive alternative for the stent-free interventional treatment of de novo coronary artery disease (CAD). However, data regarding a DCB-only approach in de novo CAD are currently limited to vessels of small caliber.

Methods

By means of propensity score (PS) matching 234 individuals with de novo CAD were identified with similar demographic characteristics. This patient population was stratified in a 1:1 fashion according to a reference vessel diameter cut-off of 2.75 mm in small and large vessel disease. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 9 months.

Results

Patients with small vessel disease had an average reference diameter of 2.45 ± 0.23 mm, while the large vessel group averaged 3.16 ± 0.27 mm. Regarding 9-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE), 5.7% of the patients with small and 6.1% of the patients with large vessels had MACE (p=0.903). Analysis of the individual MACE components revealed a TLR rate of 3.8% in small and 1.0% in large vessels (p=0.200). Of note, no thrombotic events in the DCB treated coronary segments occurred in either group during the 9-month follow-up.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrate for the first time that DCB-only PCI of de novo lesions in large coronary arteries (>2.75 mm) is safe and as effective. Interventional treatment for CAD without permanent or temporary scaffolding, demonstrated a similar efficacy for large and small vessels.