Design and rationale of a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial to determine the safety and efficacy of the Biolimus A9™ drug coated balloon for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: First-in-man trial (REFORM)

Paclitaxel-coated versus sirolimus-coated balloon angioplasty for coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although use of sirolimus-based analogs has shown superiority over paclitaxel in drug-eluting stents, the relative efficacy of these two agents released from drug-coated balloons (DCB) is unclear. The present meta-analysis is aimed to compare outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) versus sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) for either in-stent restenosis or native de novo lesions.

METHODS

The study outcomes were 1) target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization, and 2) follow-up angiographic parameters including late lumen loss (LLL), diameter stenosis, and minimal lumen diameter (MLD). Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from their inception to January 2024 identified five randomized clinical trials and three observational studies with a total of 1861 patients (889 in PCB and 972 in SCB groups). During 9-12 months of follow-up, there was no significant difference in TLF (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75-1.35) between the two groups. On follow-up angiography at 6-9 months, MLD (WMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.17) was larger in PCB but there was no statistically significant difference in LLL (WMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.23-0.02) and diameter stenosis (WMD -3.33, 95% CI -8.11-1.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing DCB-only PCI, the risk of TLF was similar during 9-12 months of follow-up after PCB and SCB treatment. However, the MLD was larger favoring PCB over SCB on follow-up angiography.

Outcomes With Limus- vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the outcomes with limus drug-coated balloons (DCBs) vs paclitaxel DCBs were small and underpowered for clinical endpoints.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes with limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed through January 2024 for RCTs comparing limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for PCI. The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were late angiographic findings. Summary estimates were constructed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with 821 patients were included; 446 patients received a limus DCB, and 375 patients received a paclitaxel DCB. There was no difference between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs in the incidence of TLR at a mean of 13.4 months (10.3% vs 7.8%; risk ratio [RR]: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant interaction among studies for de novo coronary lesions vs in-stent restenosis (Pinteraction = 0.58). There were no differences in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiac mortality, or target vessel myocardial infarction between groups. However, limus DCBs were associated with a higher risk of binary restenosis (RR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.14-3.12), late lumen loss (mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28), and a smaller minimum lumen diameter (mean difference = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02) at late follow-up. In addition, late lumen enlargement occurred more frequently (50% vs 27.5%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) with paclitaxel DCBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing DCB-only PCI, there were no differences in the risk of clinically driven TLR and other clinical outcomes between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs. However, paclitaxel DCBs were associated with better late angiographic outcomes. These findings support the need for future trials to establish the role of new-generation limus DCBs for PCI.

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).