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

Sirolimus-coated balloon in all-comer population of coronary artery disease patients: the EASTBOURNE DIABETES prospective registry

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients are still suboptimal, and it is unclear if diabetic patients might derive a benefit from the use of drug-coated balloons.

AIMS

To evaluate the impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI with sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) MagicTouch (Concept Medical, India).

METHODS

We conducted a subgroup analysis of the prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated EASTBOURNE registry, evaluating the performance of MagicTouch SCB in patients with and without diabetes. The study primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12-month follow-up. Secondary clinical endpoints were major adverse clinical events (MACE), death, myocardial infarction (MI), and BARC 2-5 bleedings.

RESULTS

Among 2,083 enrolled patients, a total of 864 suffered from diabetes (41.5%). Patients with diabetes had a numerically higher occurrence of TLR (6.5% vs. 4.7% HR 1.38, 95%CI 0.91-2.08), all-cause death (3.8% vs. 2.6%, HR 1.81, 95%CI 0.95-3.46), and MACE (12.2% vs. 8.9%; HR 1.26 95%CI 0.92-1.74). The incidence of spontaneous MI was significantly higher among diabetic patients (3.4% vs. 1.5%, HR 2.15 95%CI 1.09-4.25); bleeding events did not significantly differ. The overall incidence of TLR was higher among in-stent restenosis (ISR) as compared to de-novo coronary lesions, irrespectively from diabetes status.

CONCLUSIONS

In the EASTBOURNE DIABETES registry, diabetic patients treated with the MagicTouch SCB did not have a significant increase in TLR when compared to non-diabetic patients; moreover, diabetic status did not affect the study device performance in terms of TLR, in both de-novo lesions and ISR.

Treatment of Peripheral Artery Disease Using Injectable Biomaterials and Drug-Coated Balloons: Safety and Efficacy Perspective

The possibility of injectable biomaterials being used in the therapy of peripheral artery disease (PAD) is investigated in this article. We conducted a thorough review of the literature on the use and efficacy of biomaterials (BMs) and drug-coated balloons (DCBs). These BMs included hydrogels, collagen scaffolds, and nanoparticles. These BMs could be used alone or in combination with growth factors, stem cells, or gene therapy. The treatment of peripheral artery disease with DCBs is increasingly common in the field of interventional angiology. Studies have been carried out to examine the effectiveness of paclitaxel-coated balloons such as PaccocathTM in lowering the frequency with which further revascularization operations are required. PCB angioplasty and angioplasty without paclitaxel did not significantly vary in terms of mortality, according to the findings of a recent meta-analysis that included the results of four randomized controlled studies. On the other hand, age was found to be a factor that predicted mortality. There was a correlation between the routine utilization of scoring balloon angioplasty along with DCBs and improved clinical outcomes in de novo lesions. In both preclinical and clinical testing, the SelutionTM DCB has demonstrated efficacy and safety, but further research is required to determine whether or not it is effective and safe over the long term. In addition, we reviewed the difficulties involved in bringing injectable BMs-based medicines to clinical trials, including the approval processes required by regulatory bodies. Injectable BMs have a significant amount of therapeutic promise for PAD, which highlights the need for more research and clinical studies to be conducted in this field. In conclusion, this research focuses on the potential of injectable BMs and DCBs in the treatment of PAD as well as the hurdles that must be overcome in order to translate these treatments into clinical trials. In this particular field, there is a demand for further research as well as clinical trials.

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.

Metal free percutaneous coronary interventions in all-comers: First experience with a novel sirolimus-coated balloon

BACKGROUND

Limus-eluting stents have become the mainstay for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, even with the latest generation drug-eluting stent, in-stent restenosis and very late stent thrombosis remain a concern. The Selution SLR™ drug-coated balloon (DCB) is a novel sirolimus-coated balloon that provides a controlled release of the antiproliferative drug. Herein we evaluated its performance in a real-world patient cohort with complex coronary artery lesions.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PCI using the Selution SLR™ DCB were analyzed from the prospective SIROOP registry. We evaluated procedural success and clinical outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

From September 2020 to April 2021, we enrolled 78 patients (87 lesions) treated using a "DCB only" strategy. The mean age was 66.7 ± 10.4 years and 28 (36%) presented with an acute coronary syndrome. Almost all lesions were type B2/C 86 (99%) and 49 (63%) had moderate to severe calcifications. Procedural success was 100%. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months (interquartile range: 10.0-12.6), MACE occurred in 5 (6.8%) patients. No acute vessel closure was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In complex coronary lesions, a "DCB only" strategy using the Selution SLR™ DCB is not just safe and feasible, but also seems to be associated with a low rate of MACE at 1-year follow-up. Our promising results warrant further evaluation in a dedicated comparative trial.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Strategy in de novo Lesions of Large Coronary Arteries

Background and Objectives

Use of drug-coated balloon (DCB)-only strategy for revascularization of native large coronary artery lesions is on the rise. The long-term efficacy of this approach for bifurcation and non-bifurcation lesions remains unknown. We aim to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of DCB-only strategy for the treatment of de novo bifurcation and non-bifurcation lesions in large coronary arteries.

Methods

This multicenter, prospective, observational study enrolled 119 patients with de novo coronary lesions in vessels ≥2.75 mm. The primary end point was the rate of clinically driven target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Patients were followed up for a median of 2 years.

Results

Of 119 patients with 138 lesions, 66 patients (75 lesions) had bifurcation and 53 patients (63 lesions) had non-bifurcation lesions. Average reference vessel diameter was 3.1 ± 0.3 mm, and there was no difference in bifurcation and non-bifurcation group (3.0 ± 0.3 vs. 3.1 ± 0.3mm; p = 0.27). At 2-year follow-up, the TLF occurred in five (4.2%), TLR in four (3.4%), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) in five (4.2%) cases. The frequency of TLR and TVR was higher in the non-bifurcation group (p = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively), but there were no differences in TLF between the two groups (p = 0.17). The cumulative incidence of TLF (Kaplan–Meier estimates) was also not different in the two groups (log-rank p = 0.11).

Conclusion

DCB-only strategy for de novo lesions in large coronary arteries appears to be safe and effective for both bifurcation and non-bifurcation lesions. Further randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm the value of DCB-only strategy in de novo bifurcation lesions of large vessels.

Outcomes with drug-coated balloons vs. drug-eluting stents in small-vessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in small-vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) remains controversial.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of DCB vs. DES in de-novo SVD. We included a total of 5 RCTs (1459 patients), with (DCB n = 734 and DES n = 725).

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up duration of 6 months, DCB was associated with smaller late lumen loss (LLL) compared with DES (mean difference -0.12 mm) (95% confidence intervals (CI) [-0.21, -0.03 mm], p = 0.01). Over a median follow-up of 12 months, both modalities had similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (8.7% vs. 10.2%; odds ratio (OR): 0.94, 95% CI [0.49-1.79], p = 084), all-cause mortality (1.17% vs. 2.38%; OR: 0.53, 95% CI [0.16-1.75], p = 0.30), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.9% vs. 3.9%; OR: 1.26, 95% CI [0.51-3.14], p = 0.62), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (8.2% vs. 7.8%; OR: 1.06, 95% CI [0.40-2.82], p = 0.91). DCBs were associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) compared with DES (1.55% vs. 3.31%; OR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.23-1.00], p = 0.05, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

PCI of SVD with DCBs is associated with smaller LLL, lower risk of MI, and similar risk of MACE, death, TLR, and TVR compared with DES over one year. DCB appears as an attractive alternative to DES in patients with de-novo SVD, but long-term clinical data are still needed.