Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Feasibility Study

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo large vessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 2888 patients

INTRODUCTION

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, data regarding performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD) is still lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to January 24, 2024, for studies which compared the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels (≥ 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death (ACD), and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random effects model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2888 patients (DCB n = 1334; DES n = 1533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. No differences were observed between DCB and DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40-1.34]; p = 0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57-1.07]; p = 0.12), and LLL (MD - 0.14; 95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02]; p = 0.10) at follow-up. DES proved a higher mean acute gain versus DCB [1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60); p = 0.0006].

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a "metal-free" strategy in this subset of CAD.

Coronary stent failure: role of a blended approach with drug-coated balloons for complex lesions

The management of coronary artery disease by means of percutaneous approach have been focused initially to overcome the recoil and acute occlusion after vessel ballooning; therefore, to develop and improve metallic stent platforms, and later drug-eluting technologies. Contemporarily, the necessity emerged to optimize interventional procedures using functional physiologic tests and intravascular imaging guidance, but still stent failures, especially in the complex lesion setting, continue to be not negligible. This comprehensive review is focused on the technology of drug-coated balloons as a tool to treat coronary artery disease without the need for metal implantation but still eluting antirestenotic drugs such as paclitaxel or sirolimus. We delve into these technologies, the drugs, the technical aspects of the deployment and the most updated evidence also proposing a dedicated interventional algorithm. There is solid data to support the use of drug-coated balloons in patients with in-stent restenosis and de-novo small coronary artery disease but also new evidence with promising results from recent studies indicate the feasibility of this approach in complex coronary interventions, bifurcation lesions and larger coronary vessels. In this state-of-the-art review, we also propose a blended approach based on the combination of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons, keeping in mind the necessity to reduce the total stent length in order to reduce the long-term risk of complications.

Drug-Coated Balloon in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Ready for the Prime Time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are a major global health concern. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) has been endorsed as safe and effective in the management of culprit and non-culprit lesions of ACS. However, permanent metallic implants may have drawbacks, including the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and the risk of long-term stent-related complications. An alternative approach using drug-coated balloons (DCBs) is gaining growing interest, having the potential of delivering therapy directly to vulnerable plaques, avoiding the need for permanent metallic implants, and potentially allowing for better long-term medical treatment. Despite limited evidence, DCB is being explored in several patients' subgroups. This review aims to discuss the existing evidence regarding DCB in ACS management.

RECENT FINDINGS

DCB appears to be a promising strategy in the management of ACS, showing comparable angiographic and clinical results as compared to new-generation DES in relatively small clinical trials or large prospective registries. The advantage of avoiding permanent implants is particularly appealing in this setting, where DCB has the potential of delivering anti-atherogenic local therapy directly to vulnerable plaques still amenable to atherogenic regression. This review seeks to underline the theoretical background of DCB use and reports the available evidence in its support in the specific setting of ACS. In the context of ACS, the use of DCB is highly attractive, offering a dedicated anti-atherogenic local therapy, capable of addressing a broad range of vulnerable plaques and patients.

Cardiovascular Outcomes after Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Drug-Eluting Stent Placement for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by comparing with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement. Methods: By a systematic literature search, nine (five randomized controlled, two retrospective propensity-score matched, and two retrospective baseline-balanced) studies comparing the midterm clinical and angiographic outcomes after PCB angioplasty and DES placement were included, yielding 974 and 1130 ACS cases in PCB and DES groups, respectively. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac mortality (CM), all-cause mortality (ACM), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Late luminal loss (LLL) and bleeding events (BLD) were also estimated. Results: The frequencies of MACE in PCB and DES groups were 8.42% and 10.62%, respectively. PCB angioplasty had no significant impacts on all of MACE (risk ratio: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.68-1.18, p = 0.44), CM, ACM, MI, TVR, TLR, BLD, and LLL, compared to DES placement in random-effects model. Conclusions: The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed the feasibility of PCB angioplasty for the de novo lesions in patients with ACS in comparison with DES placement by the emergent procedures.

A New Frontier for Drug-Coated Balloons: Treatment of "De Novo" Stenosis in Large Vessel Coronary Artery Disease

Background: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are a well-established option for treating in-stent restenosis endorsed by European Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. However, in recent years, a strategy of "leaving nothing behind" with DCB in de novo coronary stenosis has emerged as an appealing approach. Methods: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the current literature on the use of drug-coated balloons in the treatment of de novo stenosis in large vessel disease. Results: Observational studies, as well as randomized studies, demonstrated the safety of DCB percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in large vessel disease. The rate of major adverse cardiac events is even lower compared to drug-eluting stents in stable coronary artery disease. Conclusions: DCB PCI is feasible in large vessel disease, and future large, randomized studies are ongoing to confirm these results.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon for de novo lesions of large coronary arteries: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is a novel approach to avoiding stent-related complications and has proven effective for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and small vessels. However, its role in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels is less settled.

Aims

To estimate the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon versus stent in the treatment of de novo lesions in large coronary arteries.

Methods

We searched the literature until April 2023. We judged the safety of DCB based on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), cardiac death, all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and bleeding event; and efficacy according to late lumen loss (LLL), minimum lumen diameter (MLD). We conducted subgroup analyses according to stent type and whether urgent PCI was required.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs were included. Overall, LLL (mean difference (MD) = -0.19, 95 % confidence interval (CI): -0.32 to -0.06, P = 0.003) was lower in the DCB group than in the Stent arm. This effect was consistent in subgroup analysis regardless of stent type and disease type. In terms of safety indicators, there were no significant differences between DCB and stent. The subgroup analyses found that safety indicators showed no significant differences between DCB and drug-eluting stent (DES), but TLR was lower in the DCB than in the bare metal stent (BMS). Moreover, in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), safety indicators and LLL showed no significant differences between DCB and DES, but MLD in the DCB was smaller. While in patients with excluded STEMI, MACE and TLR was lower in the DCB compared with the overall stent.

Conclusions

DCB could be a promising alternative for treating de novo lesions in large coronary arteries with satisfactory efficacy and low risk, superior to BMS and not inferior to DES, with a trend toward lower late lumen loss.

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 balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established strategy for coronary artery disease. However, the new generation drug-eluting stent (DES) is recommended for patients with Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for coronary artery revascularization. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy of DCBs in patients with AMI undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We searched the WOS, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL till March 2023, for studies that compared DCBs versus DES in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. We used a random-effects model to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, Late lumen Loss (LLL), and minimum lumen diameter (MLD) between the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comprising 2644 patients were included. The pooled OR showed non-inferiority of DCB over DES in terms of MACE (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.57 to 1.40], p = 0.63). When we defined MACE as a composite of cardiac death, MI, and TLR; the pooled OR favored DCB over DES (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.28 to 0.9], p = 0.02). Moreover, DCB was not inferior to DES in terms of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.8, p = 0.73), cardiac mortality, (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.56, p = 0.29), MI (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.34 to 2.29, p = 0.79), stent thrombosis (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.35 to 4.23, p = 0.76), TLR (OR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.93, p = 0.8), LLL (MD = -0.6, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.19, p = 0.64), or MLD (MD = -0.4, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.25, p = 0.76).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicated that DCB intervention was not inferior to DES in the PCI setting in patients with AMI, and can be recommended as a feasible strategy in AMI.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023412757.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Lesions in Large Vessels: A Study-Level Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) can be used as an alternative to drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with de novo small vessel coronary artery disease. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of solely using DCB versus DES in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo coronary lesions in large vessels.

METHOD

A database search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and http://Clinicaltrials.gov for trials comparing DCB only with DES in treating de novo coronary lesions in large vessels. Efficacy outcomes included coronary angiography (CAG), follow-up minimal lumen diameter (MLD), and late luminal loss (LLL). Safety outcomes included target lesion failure [TLF: cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR)] and their individual components.

RESULTS

We included seven randomized control trials (RCTs) with 816 patients, of which 422 and 394 patients were in the DCB and DES groups, respectively. MLD measured during the 6-12 months follow-up in the DCB group was statistically significantly smaller than in the DES group (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07, P = 0.003, I2 = 52%). LLL measured at 6-12 months follow-up was statistically significantly lower in the DCB group than in the DES group (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.05, P = 0.003, I2 = 60%). TLF, cardiac death, MI, and TLR, were not statistically significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Use of DCB was associated with less LLL at 6-12 months than DES and was not associated with any increase in adverse clinical events. This data suggests DCB are as effective in treating de novo coronary lesions in large vessels as DES.

Comparisons of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent for the treatment of cancer patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Treatment for cancer patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains challenging. The objective of the study was to investigate the safety and efficiency of drug eluting balloon (DEB) versus drug eluting stent (DES) in this high-risk group.

METHODS

Between 1st January 2017 and 1st January 2022, cancer patients admitted to Beijing Chaoyang Hospital with AMI were retrospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). The secondary endpoints included major bleeding events, heart failure and cardiac complications.

RESULTS

A total of 164 cancer patients presenting with AMI were included in the final analysis. Patients treated with DEB had a numerically lower rate of MACE than those treated with DES during a median follow-up of 21.8 months (22.9% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.23). Patients treated with DEB had a trend towards lower rate of major bleeding events than patients treated with DES (6.3% vs. 18.1%, HR 2.96, 95% CI [0.88, 9.92], p = 0.08). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to the rate of heart failure (4.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.32) and cardiac complications (0.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that in cancer patients with AMI, DEB had a trend towards lower rate of major bleeding events and a numerically lower rate of MACE compared with DES.

Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Strategy for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Backgrounds

Many clinical trials have demonstrated the value of drug-coated balloons (DCB) for in-stent restenosis. However, their role in de novo lesions is not well documented. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the DCB-only strategy compared to other percutaneous coronary intervention strategies for de novo coronary lesions.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published up to May 6, 2023. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events and late lumen loss.

Results

A total of eighteen trials with 3336 participants were included. Compared with drug-eluting stents, the DCB-only strategy was associated with a similar risk of major adverse cardiac events (risk ratio (RR) = 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59 to 1.37, P = 0.631) and a significant decrease in late lumen loss (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.04, P = 0.021). This effect was consistent in subgroup analysis regardless of indication, follow-up time, drug-eluting stent type, and dual antiplatelet therapy duration. However, DCBs were inferior to DESs for minimum lumen diameter and percentage diameter stenosis. The DCB-only strategy showed significantly better outcomes for most endpoints compared to plain-old balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents.

Conclusions

Interventions with a DCB-only strategy are comparable to those of drug-eluting stents and superior to plain-old balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents for the treatment of selected de novo coronary lesions. Additional evidence is still warranted to confirm the value of DCB before widespread clinical utilization can be recommended.

Drug-Coated Balloon in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

According to the latest coronary interventional guidelines, a drug-eluting stent is the recommended reperfusion therapy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). However, deficiencies and defects, such as in-stent restenosis (ISR), incomplete stent apposition, stent thrombosis, reinfarction after stent implantation, long-term dual antiplatelet drug use, and adverse reactions of metal implants, plague clinicians and patients. Drug-coated balloon (DCB), which delivers antiproliferative agents into the vessel wall without stent implantation and leaves no implants behind after the procedure, is a novel option for percutaneous coronary intervention and has proven to be a promising strategy in cases of ISR, small vessel coronary artery disease, and bifurcation lesions. However, most of the available experience has been gained in elective percutaneous coronary intervention, and experience in pPCI is lacking. The current evidence for the use of DCB-only in pPCI was discussed and analyzed in this review.

Drug Coated Balloon in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Narrative Review

Drug coated balloons (DCBs) are currently indicated in guidelines as a first choice option in the management of instant restenosis, whereas their use in de novo lesions is still debated. The concerns raised after the contrasting results of the initial trials with DCBs in de novo lesions have been more recently overcome by a larger amount of data confirming their safety and effectiveness as compared to drug-eluting stents (DES), with potentially greater benefits being achieved, especially in particular anatomical settings, as in very small or large vessels and bifurcations, but also in selected subsets of higher-risk patients, where a 'leave nothing behind' strategy could offer a reduction of the inflammatory stimulus and thrombotic risk. The present review aims at providing an overview of current available DCB devices and their indications of use based on the results of data achieved so far.

Assessment of Paclitaxel Drug-Coated Balloon Only Angioplasty in STEMI

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) has emerged as the standard of care, but stent-related events have persisted. Drug-coated balloon (DCB)-only angioplasty is an emerging technology, although it is not fully evaluated compared with DES in the context of pPCI.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of DCB-only angioplasty compared with second-generation DES in pPCI.

METHODS

All-cause mortality and net adverse cardiac events (cardiovascular mortality, acute coronary syndrome, ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, and unplanned target lesion revascularization [TLR]) were compared among all patients treated with DCBs only or with second-generation DES only for first presentation of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) due to de novo disease between January 1, 2016, and November 15, 2019. Patients treated with both DCBs and DES were excluded. Data were analyzed using Cox regression models, Kaplan-Meier estimator plots and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Among 1,139 patients with STEMI due to de novo disease, 452 were treated with DCBs and 687 with DES. After a median follow-up period of >3 years, all-cause mortality was 49 of 452 and 62 of 687 in the DCB and DES groups, respectively (P = 0.18). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, there was no difference in mortality between DCBs and DES in the full and propensity score-matched cohorts. Age, frailty risk, history of heart failure, and family history of ischemic heart disease remained significant independent predictors of mortality. There was no difference in any of the secondary endpoints, including unplanned TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

DCB-only angioplasty appears safe compared with DES for STEMI in terms of all-cause mortality and all net adverse cardiac events, including unplanned TLR. DCB may be an efficacious and safe alternative to DES in selected patient groups. (Drug Coated Balloon Only vs Drug Eluting Stent Angioplasty; NCT04482972).

Drug-Coated Balloons for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Metaanalysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

The role of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is not well established.

Methods

Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared DCB with stents in the treatment of AMI from their inception to 30 July 2021. The primary clinical endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Summary estimations were conducted using fixed-effects analysis complemented by several subgroups. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/CRD42021272886).

Results

A total of 4 randomized controlled trials with 485 patients were included. On routine clinical follow-up, DCB was associated with no difference in the incidence of MACEs compared with control (risk ratio [RR] 0.59 [0.31 to 1.13]; P=0.11). DCB was associated with similar MACEs compared with drug-eluting stent and lower MACEs compared with bare-metal stent. There was no difference between DCB and control in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and minimal lumen diameter during follow-up. However, DCB was associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 0.16 [0.03 to 0.90]; P=0.04) and lower late lumen loss (mean difference -0.20 [-0.27 to -0.13]; P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

In treatment of patients with AMI, DCB might be a feasible interventional strategy versus control as it associated with comparable clinical outcomes. Future large-volume, well-designed randomized controlled trials to evaluating the role of the DCB in this setting are warranted.

The factors influencing the efficiency of drug-coated balloons

The drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an emerging percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) device that delivers drugs to diseased vessels to decrease the rate of vascular stenosis. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated that DCBs tend to have both good safety and efficacy profiles, leading to extended application indications in the clinic, including in-stent restenosis (ISR) for metal stents such as drug-eluting stents (DESs), small vascular disease, bifurcation disease, large vascular disease, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and high bleeding risk. However, some previous clinical data have suggested that DCBs performed less effectively than DESs. No studies or reviews have systematically discussed the improvement strategies for better DCB performance until now. Drug loss during the process of delivery to the target lesion and inefficient delivery of the coating drug to the diseased vascular wall are two key mechanisms that weaken the efficiency of DCBs. This review is the first to summarize the key influencing factors of DCB efficiency in terms of balloon structure and principles, and then it analyzes how these factors cause outcomes in practice based on current clinical trial studies of DCBs in the treatment of different types of lesions. We also provide some recommendations for improving DCBs to contribute to better DCB performance by improving the design of DCBs and combining other factors in clinical practice.

Appropriate Surrogate Endpoint in Drug-Coated Balloon Trials for Coronary Artery Diseases

Background

The appropriateness of using late lumen loss (LLL) as a surrogate endpoint was established in drug-eluting stent (DES) studies, but it was less supportive for drug-coated balloon (DCB) trials.

Methods

Studies published until 23 June 2021 were searched from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The correlation between LLL, MLD (minimal lumen diameter), and %DS (percentage diameter stenosis) and clinical endpoints was evaluated by linear regression. Standardized effect size and its 95% CIs were used to illustrate the difference among LLL, MLD, and %DS.

Results

A total of 24 clinical trials were eligible [16 DCB vs. DES, 7 DCB vs. plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), and 1 DCB vs. DES vs. POBA]. Thirteen (54.2%) trials used LLL as the primary endpoint. LLL, MLD, and %DS all had significant associations with clinical endpoints. For DCB vs. DES trials, the number of studies that reported inconsistent results between LLL and MLD was 12/16 (75.0%) and between LLL and %DS was 10/15 (66.7%), while in MLD and %DS, it was 1/16 (6.3%). The difference of standardized effect size between LLL and MLD was −0.47 (95% CI, −0.69 to −0.25, p < 0.001) and LLL and %DS was−0.31 (95%CI,−0.43 to−0.20, p < 0.001) while in MLD and %DS, there was no difference, 0.1 (95%CI,−0.02 to 0.22, p = 0.084).

Conclusions

For DCB trials, an appropriate surrogate is associated with the control device. The traditional LLL could be used in the DCB vs. POBA trials. However, MLD/%DS should be considered a more suitable surrogate endpoint when comparing DCB with DES.

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.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one of the main causes of death in the world, and the incidence of AMI is increasing in the young population. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has become an effective concept for the treatment of in-stent restenosis, small vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, high blood risk conditions, and even de novo large vessel disease. To ensure whether DCB can play an alternative role in AMI, we conducted a comprehensive meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB in the treatment of AMI. Electronic databases were searched for RCTs that compared DCB with stent for AMI. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), the secondary outcome was late lumen loss (LLL). RevMan 5.3 software and RStudio software were used for data analysis. Five RCTs involving 528 patients with 6–12 months of follow-up were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACEs between DCB group and stent group (RR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.74; P = 0.66). Lower LLL was shown in DCB group (WMD, − 0.29; 95% CI − 0.46 to − 0.12; P < 0.001). This meta-analysis of RCT showed that DCB might provide a promising way on AMI compared with stents. Rigorous patients’ selection and adequate predilation of culprit lesions are necessary to optimize results and prevent bailout stent implantation.

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020214333.

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.

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Implantation of Drug-Coated Balloon

The drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an emerging percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) device with theoretical advantages and promising results. Recent clinical observations have demonstrated that DCB tends to have both good efficacy and a good safety profile in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) for both bare-metal and drug-eluting stents (DES), de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), and other situation, such as high bleeding risk, chronic total occlusion, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become an essential medication in daily clinical practice, but the optimal duration of DAPT after the implantation of a DCB remains unknown. At the time of the first in vivo implantation of paclitaxel-DCB for the treatment of ISR in 2006, the protocol-defined DAPT duration was only 1 month. Subsequently, DAPT duration ranging from 1 to 12 months has been recommended by various trials. However, there have been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the optimal duration of DAPT after DCB angioplasty. Current clinical guidelines normally recommend the duration of DAPT after DCB-only angioplasty based on data from RCTs on the optimal duration of DAPT after stenting. In this review, we summarized current clinical trials on DCB-only angioplasty for different types of CADs and their stipulated durations of DAPT, and compared their clinical results such as restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis event. We hope this review can assist clinicians in making reasonable decisions about the duration of DAPT after DCB implantation.

New Ultrasound-Controlled Paclitaxel Releasing Balloon vs. Asymmetric Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction - A Prospective Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Application of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) is popular for the treatment of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A new DCB has been designed as ultrasound-controlled paclitaxel releasing. This study was conducted to determine whether a DCB-only strategy has a similar safety profile and equal angiographic and clinical outcomes to DES implantation in primary ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, as well as determine the efficiency and safety of this new DCB.Methods and Results:Overall, 184 pretreated STEMI patients were randomized into DCB and DES groups with a 1:1 allocation. The main study end-point was late lumen loss (LLL) during the 9 months after PCI. Late lumen loss was reported to be 0.24±0.39 mm in the DCB group and 0.31±0.38 mm in the DES group (P=0.215). Diameter stenosis was 28.27±15.35% in the DCB group and 25.73±15.41% in the DES group (P=0.312). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were reported in 3 patients (3.4%) in the DCB group and 4 patients (4.7%) in the DES group (P=0.718). TLR and TVR in the DCB group was 2.3%, 3.4% and 2.4%, 3.5% in the DES group (P=1.000), respectively. No cardiac death and stent thrombosis (ST) was found in the DCB group at 12 months clinical follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

The DCB-only strategy showed good angiographic and clinical outcomes in the 9- and 12-month follow-up periods, respectively. The VasoguardTM DCB is safe and feasible to treat STEMI patients.

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent in acute myocardial infarction: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing the published literature on drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloon (DCB) have drawn divergent conclusions, as these studies are limited by small sample sizes. To overcome these limitations, we thus conducted a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). It was hypothesized that DCB use at the AMI is associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease and death.

METHODS

The electronic databases Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Cinahl were searched from the earliest available date until August 2021. Study included in our study had to meet all of the following inclusion criteria: all randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of DES versus DCB in the treatment of AMI were considered eligible for analysis; participants received DCB or DES; reporting the available data on cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis. Review Manager Software (v 5.3; Cochrane Collaboration) was used for the meta-analysis. Two of us independently assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using parameters defined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions criteria.

RESULTS

It was hypothesized that DCB use at the AMI is associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease and death.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/AVTYW.

Clinical implication of quantitative flow ratio to predict clinical events after drug-coated balloon angioplasty in patients with in-stent restenosis

BACKGROUND

The association between the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and adverse events after drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions has not been investigated.

HYPOTHESIS

Post-procedural QFR is related to adverse events in patients undergoing DCB angioplasty for ISR lesions.

METHODS

This retrospective study included data from patients undergoing DCB angioplasty for drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR between January 2016 and February 2019. The QFR was measured at baseline and after DCB angioplasty. The endpoint was the vessel-oriented composite endpoint (VOCE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Overall, 177 patients with 185 DES-ISR lesions were included. During 1-year follow-up, 27 VOCEs occurred in 26 patients. The area under curve (AUC) of the post-procedural QFR was statistically greater than that of the in-stent percent diameter stenosis (0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.87 vs. 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.75; p = .032). Final QFR cutoff of 0.94 has the best predictive accuracy for VOCE. A QFR > 0.94 was associated with a lower risk of VOCE compared to a QFR ≤ 0.94 (log-rank test, p < .0001). Survival analysis using the multivariable Cox model showed that a post-procedural QFR ≤ 0.94 was an independent predictor of 1-year VOCE (hazard ratio 6.53, 95% CI 2.70-15.8, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A lower QFR value was associated with worse clinical outcomes at 1 year after DCB angioplasty for DES-ISR.

Drug-coated balloons in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (Review)

Drug-eluting stents are the standard revascularization strategy for the treatment of symptomatic coronary artery disease. However, in-stent restenosis (ISR), stent thrombosis and reinfarction of target lesions following stent implantation present challenges. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs), which deliver antiproliferative drugs into the vessel wall without stent implantation, are a novel treatment option for percutaneous coronary intervention and have been proven to act as a promising strategy in the treatment of ISR and coronary small vessel disease. However, their role in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. The present review discusses current evidence for the treatment of AMI with DCBs.

Benefits with drug-coated balloon as compared to a conventional revascularization strategy for the treatment of coronary and non-coronary arterial disease: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 45 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have shown promising results for the percutaneous treatment of de novo and restenotic lesions, involving both the coronary and femoropopliteal district. However, clinical outcomes data associated with the use of this devices are still unclear, with potential warnings on increased mortality being raised from initial studies. We aimed at performing an updated and comprehensive meta-analysis comparing DCB with conventional percutaneous revascularization strategies for the treatment of coronary (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD).

METHODS

Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for studies comparing DCB vs a standard percutaneous revascularization strategy, with or without stenting, for the treatment of CAD and PAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality. Secondary endpoints were recurrent acute ischemic events (myocardial infarction or amputation) or target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

We included 45 randomized trials, (CAD: 27 studies, PAD: 18 studies) with an overall population of 7718 patients, (56.4%) randomized to a DCB strategy. At a mean follow-up of19.3 ± 15.2 months, death occurred in 5.8% of the patients, with no significant difference between DCB or conventionally treated patients (5.9% vs 5.7%, OR[95%CI] = 0.89[0.71,1.11], p = 0.31; phet = 0.43). We observed a non-significant reduction in recurrent acute ischemic events, whereas the use of DCB significantly reduced the rate of TLR, with larger benefits observed in patients with PAD and respect to balloon-only angioplasty, while being lower in comparison with stent implantation. No significant interaction was observed with de novo lesions or in-stent restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, the use of drug-coated balloons for the percutaneous treatment of CAD and PAD is associated to a comparable risk of mortality and recurrent acute ischemic events as compared to a conventional revascularization strategy, although offering larger benefits in terms of TLR, especially when compared with balloon-only angioplasty and in femoropopliteal disease.

Drug-Coated Balloon for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent is the most common mode of revascularization for coronary artery disease. However, restenosis rates remain high. Non-stent-based local drug delivery by a drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been investigated, as it leaves no metallic mesh. A DCB consists of a semicompliant balloon coated with antiproliferative agents encapsulated in a polymer matrix, which is released into the wall after inflation and contact with the intima. DCB have demonstrated effectiveness in treating in-stent restenosis. Clinical studies using DCB in de novo coronary artery disease have shown mixed results, with a major benefit in small-vessel disease. Differences in study results are not only due to variations in DCB technology but also to disparity in procedural approach, "leave nothing behind" or "combination therapy," and vessel size. This review focuses on the available evidence from randomized trials and proposes a design for future clinical trials.

Sirolimus-Eluting Balloon for the Treatment of Coronary Lesions in Complex ACS Patients: The SELFIE Registry

BACKGROUND

Sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) represent a novel therapeutic option for both in-stent restenosis (ISR) and de novo coronary lesions treatment, especially in small vessels. Our registry sought to evaluate the procedural and clinical outcomes of such devices in a complex acute coronary syndrome (ACS) clinical setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We treated 74 consecutive patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with at least 1 SCB used for ISR and/or de novo coronary lesion in small vessels at our institution. Sixty-two patients presented with ACS, and their data were included in our analysis. The mean age was 67 ± 10 years, and patients presenting with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) were 14 (23%). De novo lesions were 52%, whereas ISR was 48%. Procedural success occurred in 100% of the cases. At the 11 ± 7 months follow-up, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were 3 (4.8%). Cardiovascular death (CD) occurred in 1 (1.6%) patient and myocardial infarction (MI) in 2 patients (3.2%) as well as ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). One probable subacute thrombosis occurred (1.6%) with no major bleedings. In a subgroup analysis, the incidence of MACE did not show significant differences between patients treated for de novo lesions and ISR (HR: 0.239; CI 95%: 0.003-16.761, p=0.509).

CONCLUSIONS

In the SELFIE prospective registry, SCB showed a good safety and efficacy profile for the treatment of coronary lesions, both ISR and/or de novo in small vessels, in a complex ACS population of patients at the 11 ± 7 months follow-up.

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.

Drug-Coated Balloon for De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: A Systematic Review and Trial Sequential Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment for de novo coronary artery lesions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Background

DCB was an effective therapy for patients with in-stent restenosis. However, the efficacy of DCB in patients with de novo coronary artery lesions is still unknown.

Methods

Eligible studies were searched on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database. Systematic review and meta-analyses of RCTs were performed comparing DCB with non-DCB devices (such as plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), bare-metal stents (BMS), or drug-eluting stents (DES)) for the treatment of de novo lesions. Trial sequential meta-analysis (TSA) was performed to assess the false positive and false negative errors.

Results

A total of 2,137 patients enrolled in 12 RCTs were analyzed. Overall, no significant difference in target lesion revascularization (TLR) was found, but there were numerically lower rates after DCB treatment at 6 to 12 months follow-up (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.01; P = 0.06; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.41 to 1.16). TSA showed that at least 1,000 more randomized patients are needed to conclude the effect on TLR. A subgroup analysis from high bleeding risk patients revealed that DCB treatment was associated with lower rate of TLR (RR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.78; P = 0.03). The systematic review illustrated that the rate of bailout stenting was lower and decreased gradually.

Conclusions

DCB treatment was associated with a trend toward lower TLR when compared with controls. For patients at bleeding risk, DCB treatment was superior to BMS in TLR.

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo coronary lesions in large vessels: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Studies examining the efficiency of drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared to drug-eluting stents (DES) for de novo lesions in large vessels have reported inconsistent results.

OBJECTIVE

This comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety of DCB and DES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

METHODS

The authors formally searched electronic databases before October 2019 to identify randomized and non-randomized clinical trials (RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively). Clinical trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared DCB with DES in patients with coronary lumen diameters >2.5 mm.

RESULTS

Three RCTs and one non-RCT with a total of 321 patients were included in our meta-analysis (DCB group = 152, DES group = 169). The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.31, 0.316; P = 0.548) and the secondary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.17 (95% CI: 0.46, 2.95; P = 0.746).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicated that DCB might be non-inferior to DES as evidenced by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) assessed at 6-9 months after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with coronary artery disease.

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.

Risk of Mortality with Paclitaxel Drug-Coated Balloon in De Novo Coronary Artery Disease

A recent meta-analysis showed increased mortality with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (PCB) in peripheral arterial disease. With the absence of a definitive study evaluating the risk of mortality with PCB in de novo coronary artery disease, we performed a systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature analyzing this risk. In this review, we included 17 trials with a total of 1573 patients. Cardiac mortality was reported in 16 studies and all-cause mortality in 14 studies. Eleven studies had <12 months' follow-up; 6 had ≥12 months' follow-up. None of the studies was powered to evaluate any differences in mortality. The majority of the included studies have a Jadad scale ≤2. Ten of 17 studies had no mortality, 4 had numerically higher mortality with PCB, and 3 had lower or same mortality with PCB, when compared to drug-eluting stents. A standard meta-analysis cannot be performed, as most studies did not report hazard ratios or Kaplan-Meier survival plots on mortality. With the available literature, conclusions cannot be made in identifying the association of mortality with PCB in de novo coronary artery disease. There is an urgent need for well-designed studies with long-term follow-up for PCB in de novo coronary artery disease. A recent meta-analysis showed increased mortality with paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (PCB) in peripheries. No studies to date evaluate the risk of mortality with PCB in de novo coronary artery disease. In this systematic review and critical appraisal of literature, we outline why the risk cannot be elucidated from the available literature. A standard meta-analysis using inverse variance method would be incorrect to use, as mortality is a time-to-event data point, and only 1 out of 17 studies reported a Kaplan-Meier survival plot.

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.

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The REVELATION Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the efficacy and safety of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) strategy versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

In primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, stenting has proved to be beneficial with regard to repeat revascularization, but not recurrent myocardial infarction or death, compared with balloon angioplasty alone. A strategy of DCB angioplasty without stenting might abolish the potential disadvantages of stent implantation while reducing the probability of restenosis observed in plain old balloon angioplasty.

METHODS

In the prospective, randomized, single-center REVELATION trial, we compared DCB with DES in patients presenting with STEMI. Patients with a new, nonseverely calcified culprit lesion in a native coronary artery and a residual stenosis of <50% after pre-dilatation were randomized to treatment with a DCB or DES. The primary endpoint was fractional flow reserve at 9 months, allowing for a functional measurement of the infarct-related lesion.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were included. At 9 months after enrolment, the mean fractional flow reserve value was 0.92 ± 0.05 in the DCB group (n = 35) and 0.91 ± 0.06 in the DES group (n = 38) (p = 0.27). One abrupt vessel closure requiring treatment occurred after treatment with DCB. Up to 9-months follow-up, 2 patients required nonurgent target lesion revascularization (1 in each group).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of STEMI, the DCB strategy was noninferior to DES in terms of fractional flow reserve assessed at 9 months. Furthermore, it seemed to be a safe and feasible strategy. (Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction [REVELATION]; NCT02219802).

Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug coated balloon (DCB) is a novel treatment which seeks to acutely dilate a coronary stenosis and deliver an anti-proliferative drug to the vessel wall (reducing the risk of re-stenosis), without implanting a drug eluting stent (DES). In this study, we performed a systematic review of stentless DCB-only angioplasty in de novo coronary artery disease. We identified 41 studies examining the effects of DCB-only PCI in a variety of clinical scenarios including small vessels, bifurcations, calcified lesions, and primary PCI. DCB-only PCI appears to be associated with comparable clinical outcomes to DESs and superior angiographic outcomes to plain-old balloon angioplasty. Although current data are promising, there is still a need for further long-term randomized control trial data comparing a DCB-only approach specifically against a second- or third-generation DES. A 4-week period of dual antiplatelet therapy provides a real advantage for the DCB-only PCI approach, which is not possible with most DESs. Since rates of adverse clinical outcomes are very low for all PCI procedures attention should be turned to the development of robust endpoints with which to compare DCB-only PCI approaches to the standard treatment with a DES.