Drug-coated Balloons for Small Coronary Disease-A Literature Review

Treatment of Patients With De Novo Small-Vessel Coronary Lesions: Analysis of Six Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents

Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are indicated for the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions. Since the evidence comparing these two types of devices is limited, we undertook a meta-analysis on this issue. Our meta-analysis compared the efficacy of PCB vs. DES in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary lesions of size ≤ 2.75 mm. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The two treatments under comparison were PCB vs DES; the endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Our statistical methods were based on the reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves using the IPDfromKM algorithm. After this reconstruction, our statistical calculations included hazard ratio (HR) estimation with a 95% confidence interval (CI), assessment of between-trial heterogeneity, and risk of bias for each RCT. Our literature search identified six RCTs that met our inclusion criteria (PICCOLETO, BELLO, RESTORE SVD, BASKET-SMALL2, PICCOLETO-II, and DISSOLVE). In our main analysis, the six treatment groups using PCB were compared with the six control groups using DES. The results showed an HR of 1.029 (95%CI, 0.7446 to 1.422; P=0.86) over a follow-up of 36 months. Heterogeneity analysis across the six control groups showed worse outcomes in the BELLO trial and better outcomes in the three trials employing a limus-eluting stent. To evaluate trial heterogeneity through the comparison of the six PCB arms, five trials showed similar outcomes while the BELLO trial fared significantly worse. Risk of bias for each RCT was appropriate.  Our results indicate that in de novo small-vessel coronary lesions, PCB and DES showed similar outcomes, despite some cross-study variability. Our results provided meta-analytic confirmation that no recommendations can be made in favor of PCB or DES in the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions based on current data.

Biolimus-coated versus paclitaxel-coated balloons for coronary in-stent restenosis (BIO ASCEND ISR): a randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains challenging in current clinical practice.

AIMS

The study was conducted to investigate a novel biolimus-coated balloon (BCB) for the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with the best-investigated paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB).

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing a novel BCB with a clinically proven PCB for coronary DES-ISR. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months assessed by an independent core laboratory. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography were performed in a prespecified subgroup of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 280 patients at 17 centres were randomised to treatment with a BCB (n=140) versus a PCB (n=140). At 9 months, LLL in the BCB group was 0.23±0.37 mm compared to 0.25±0.35 mm in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.12 to 0.07) mm; p-value for non-inferiority<0.0001. Similar clinical outcomes were also observed for both groups at 12 months. In the optical coherence tomography substudy, the neointimal area at 9 months was 2.32±1.04 mm2 in the BCB group compared to 2.37±0.93 mm2 in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.09 (95% CI: -0.94 to 0.76) mm2; p=non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This head-to-head comparison of a novel BCB shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04733443).

Systematic Review on Role of Drug Eluting Stent (DES) Versus Drug-Coated Balloon (DCB) in Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to explain the current advancements in the treatment modalities for small vessel coronary artery disease (SVCAD) and de novo lesions post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), focusing on drug-coated stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB). Its goal is to address the lack of standards in the management of these lesions and to assess the potential of DCB as a preferential treatment strategy over DES in the long term. RECENT FINDINGS: Technological advancements have improved drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) which offer a more promising avenue for managing SVCAD. According to new data, DCBs, initially recognized for their efficacy in preventing restenosis within three to five years of stent placement, may offer superior outcomes compared to DES in certain clinical scenarios. This review shows that DCBs have a favorable therapeutic profile in the treatment of SVCAD, and they could be considered as an alternative to DES. Although the initial data is compelling, definitive conclusions cannot be met without further large-scale, long-term clinical trials. The implication of these findings suggests a shift in the future of SVCAD management and requires additional research to substantiate the long-term benefits of DCB use in SVCAD. Should ongoing and future studies corroborate the current evidence, DCB could emerge as the standard of care for SVCAD, significantly influencing clinical practices and future research.

The clinical utility of circulating cell division control 42 in small-vessel coronary artery disease patients undergoing drug-coated balloon treatment

BACKGROUND

Cell division control 42 (CDC42) regulates atherosclerosis, blood lipids, and inflammation and thus affects coronary artery disease (CAD), but its utility in drug-coated balloon (DCB)-treated small-vessel CAD (SV-CAD) patients is unclear. This study intended to evaluate the change and prognostic role of CDC42 in SV-CAD patients underwent DCB.

METHODS

Serum CDC42 was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 211 SV-CAD patients underwent DCB at baseline, day (D) 1, D3, and D7, as well as in 50 healthy controls (HCs).

RESULTS

CDC42 was decreased in SV-CAD patients compared to HCs (P < 0.001), and it was negatively associated with total cholesterol (P = 0.015), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P = 0.003), C-reactive protein (P = 0.001), multivessel disease (P = 0.020), and American college of cardiology/American heart association type B2/C lesions (P = 0.039) in SV-CAD patients. Longitudinally, CDC42 decreased from baseline to D1 and then gradually increased to D7 (P < 0.001) in SV-CAD patients after DCB. Interestingly, high CDC42 (cut-off value = 500 pg/mL) at baseline (P = 0.047), D3 (P = 0.046), and D7 (P = 0.008) was associated with a lower accumulating target lesion failure (TLF) rate; high CDC42 at D3 (P = 0.037) and D7 (P = 0.041) was related to a lower accumulating major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate in SV-CAD patients underwent DCB. Importantly, CDC42 at D7 (high vs. low) independently predicted lower accumulating TLF (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.145, P = 0.021) and MACE (HR = 0.295, P = 0.023) risks in SV-CAD patients underwent DCB.

CONCLUSIONS

Circulating CDC42 level relates to milder disease conditions and independently estimates lower risks of TLF and MACE in SV-CAD patients underwent DCB, but further validation is still needed.

Cleverballoon: An integrated approach for developing a drug-coated balloon with everolimus

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a chronic disease associated with high mortality and morbidity. Although treatment with drug-eluting stents is the most frequent interventional approach for coronary artery disease, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) constitute an innovative alternative, especially in the presence of certain anatomical conditions in the local coronary vasculature. DCBs allow the fast and homogenous transfer of drugs into the arterial wall, during the balloon inflation. Their use has been established for treating in-stent restenosis caused by stent implantation, while recent clinical trials have shown a satisfactory efficacy in de novo small-vessel disease. Several factors affect DCBs performance including the catheter design, the drug dose and formulation. Cleverballoon focuses on the design and development of an innovative DCB with everolimus. For the realization of the development of this new DCB, an integrated approach, including in- vivo, in-vitro studies and in-silico modelling towards the DCB optimization, is presented.Clinical Relevance-The proposed study introduces the integration of in- vivo, in-vitro and in silico approaches in the design and development process of a new DCB, following the principles of 3R's for the replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal and clinical studies.

Drug-Coated versus Uncoated Balloon for Side Branch Protection in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated with Provisional Stenting Using Drug-Eluting Stents: A Meta-analysis

Background

Provisional stenting using drug-eluting stents (DES) has become the preferred treatment for coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs). We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of side branch (SB) protection using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus an uncoated balloon (UCB) during the procedure.

Methods

Relevant randomized and nonrandomized studies were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, and CNKI databases. We used a random-effect model to pool the data by incorporating the heterogeneity between the included studies.

Results

Overall, 803 patients with CBLs treated with provisional stenting using DES were included from seven studies. With a follow-up duration of 6 to 12 months, SB protection with DCB was associated with a lower degree of postoperative diameter stenosis (mean difference (MD): -11.35%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -14.17 to-8.53, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and less late lumen loss (MD: -0.19 mm, 95% CI:-0.28 to-0.10, p < 0.001; I2 = 69%) of SB compared to those with UCB. Moreover, SB protection with DCB was associated with reduced risks of target lesion revascularization (risk ratio [RR]: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.88, p = 0.02; I2 = 0%) and major adverse cardiovascular events (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.66, p < 0.01; I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis according to the study design showed similar results.

Conclusions

For patients with CBL treated with provisional stenting using DES, SB protection with DCB was associated with better angiographic and clinical outcomes than those with UCB.