Biolimus-Coated Balloon in Small-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: The BIO-RISE CHINA Study

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.

Intravascular Ultrasound vs Angiography-Guided Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty: The ULTIMATE Ⅲ Trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty seems a safe and effective option for specific de novo coronary lesions. However, the beneficial effect of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided DCB angioplasty in de novo lesions remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the benefits of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance during DCB angioplasty in de novo coronary lesions.

METHODS

A total of 260 patients with high bleeding risk who had a de novo coronary lesion (reference vessel diameter 2.0-4.0 mm, and lesion length ≤15 mm) were randomly assigned to either an IVUS-guided or an angioplasty-guided DCB angioplasty group. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 7 months after procedure. The secondary endpoint was target vessel failure at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 2 patients in the angiography-guided group and 7 patients in the IVUS-guided group underwent bailout stent implantation (P = 0.172). The primary endpoint of 7-month LLL was 0.03 ± 0.52 mm with angiography guidance vs -0.10 ± 0.34 mm with IVUS guidance (mean difference 0.14 mm; 95% CI: 0.02-0.26; P = 0.025). IVUS guidance was also associated with a larger 7-month minimal lumen diameter (2.06 ± 0.62 mm vs 1.75 ± 0.63 mm; P < 0.001) and a smaller diameter stenosis (28.15% ± 13.88% vs 35.83% ± 17.69%; P = 0.001) compared with angiography guidance. Five target vessel failures occurred at 6 months, with 4 (3.1%) in the angiography-guided group and 1 (0.8%) in the IVUS-guided group (P = 0.370).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that IVUS-guided DCB angioplasty is associated with a lower LLL in patients with a de novo coronary lesion compared with angiography guidance. (Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography Guided Drug-Coated Balloon [ULTIMATE-III]; NCT04255043).

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).

Drug-Coated Balloons in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are specialized coronary devices comprised of a semicompliant balloon catheter with an engineered coating that allows the delivery of antiproliferative agents locally to the vessel wall during percutaneous coronary intervention. Although DCBs were initially developed more than a decade ago, their potential in coronary interventions has recently sparked renewed interest, especially in the United States. Originally designed to overcome the limitations of conventional balloon angioplasty and stenting, they aim to match or even improve upon the outcomes of drug-eluting stents without leaving a permanent implant. Presently, in-stent restenosis is the condition with the most robust evidence supporting the use of DCBs. DCBs provide improved long-term vessel patency compared with conventional balloon angioplasty and may be comparable to drug-eluting stents without the need for an additional stent layer, supporting their use as a first-line therapy for in-stent restenosis. Beyond the treatment of in-stent restenosis, DCBs provide an additional tool for de novo lesions for a strategy that avoids a permanent metal scaffold, which may be especially useful for the management of technically challenging anatomies such as small vessels and bifurcations. DCBs might also be advantageous for patients with high bleeding risk due to the decreased necessity for extended antiplatelet therapy, and in patients with diabetes and patients with diffuse disease to minimize long-stented segments. Further studies are crucial to confirm these broader applications for DCBs and to further validate safety and efficacy.

Epidemiology and current management of cardiovascular disease in China

The Annual Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China (2022) intricate landscape of cardiovascular health in China. This is the fourth section of the report with a specific focus on epidemiology and current management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in China. This section of the report highlights the epidemiological trends of CVD in China. It reveal a concerning rise in prevalence, with approximately 330 million affected individuals, including significant numbers with stroke, coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, and other conditions. CVD stands as the primary cause of mortality among both urban and rural populations, accounting for nearly half of all deaths in 2020. Mortality rates are notably higher in rural areas compared to urban centers since 2009. While age-standardized mortality rates have decreased, the absolute number of CVD deaths has increased, primarily due to population aging. Ischemic heart disease, hemorrhagic and ischemic strokes are the leading causes of CVD-related deaths. Notably, the burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has risen substantially, with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related deaths increasing from 1990 to 2016. The incidence of ischemic stroke and ischemic heart disease has shown similar increasing trends over the past three decades. CAD mortality, particularly acute myocardial infarction, has been on the rise, with higher mortality rates observed in rural areas since 2016. The prevalence of CAD has increased significantly, with over 11 million patients identified in 2013. Studies assessing hospital performance in managing acute coronary syndrome reveal gaps in adherence to guideline-recommended strategies, with disparities in care quality across hospitals. However, initiatives like the China Patient-centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE)-Retrospective AMI Study and the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome (CCC-ACS) project aim to improve patient outcomes through enhanced care protocols. Moreover, advancements in medical technology, such as quantitative flow ratio-guided lesion selection during percutaneous coronary intervention, show promise in improving clinical outcomes for patients undergoing intervention.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Various Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies for Small Coronary Artery Disease

It remains unclear which percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy is the most preferable in patients with small-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of various PCI strategies for patients with small-vessel CAD through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched multiple databases for RCTs investigating the efficacy of the following PCI strategies for small-vessel CAD (<3 mm in diameter): drug-coated balloons (DCB), early-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), bare-metal stents (BMS), cutting balloon angioplasty, and balloon angioplasty (BA). The primary outcome was the trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), mostly defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization. The secondary outcomes included each component of MACE and angiographic binary restenosis. We performed a sensitivity analysis for RCTs without BMS or first-generation DES. Our search identified 29 eligible RCTs, including 8,074 patients among the 8 PCI strategies. SES significantly reduced MACE compared with BA (hazard ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.54) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 55.9%), and the rankogram analysis showed that SES was the best. There were no significant differences between DCB and newer-generation DES in any clinical outcomes, which was consistent in the sensitivity analysis. BMS and BA were ranked as the worst 2 for most clinical outcomes. In conclusion, SES was ranked as the best for reducing MACE. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between DCB and newer-generation DES. BMS and BA were regarded as the worst strategies for small-vessel CAD.

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-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.

Coronary Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo and In-Stent Restenosis Indications

Drug-coated balloons are approved outside the United States, not only for the treatment of peripheral arteries but also for coronary arteries. This review describes the technological basics, the scenarios of clinical application, and the current available data from clinical trials for the different coronary indications.

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.

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.

Combined Analysis of Two Parallel Randomized Trials of Sirolimus-Coated and Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons in Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Lesions

BACKGROUND

Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) are a preferred treatment option for coronary in-stent restenosis. To date, data from randomized trials of alternative drug coatings are lacking. The aim of the randomized Malaysian and German-Swiss randomized trials was to investigate a novel sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) compared with a PCB in in-stent restenosis.

METHODS

One hundred one patients with drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis were enrolled in 2 identical randomized trials comparing the novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm²) with the clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please, 3 μg/mm²). Primary end point was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary end points included procedural success, major adverse cardiac events, and individual clinical end points such as stent thrombosis, cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.

RESULTS

Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.25±0.57 mm in the PCB group versus 0.26±0.60 mm in the SCB group. Mean difference between SCB and PCB was 0.01 (95% CI, -0.23 to 0.24). Noninferiority at a predefined margin of 0.35 was shown. Clinical events up to 12 months did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This first-in man comparison of a novel SCB with a crystalline coating showed similar angiographic and clinical outcomes in the treatment of coronary drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis compared with PCB.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02996318, NCT03242096.