Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons in chronic total coronary occlusion recanalization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With advancements in chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) recanalization techniques and concepts, the success rate of recanalization has been steadily increasing. However, the current data are too limited to draw any reliable conclusions about the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to confirm the efficacy of DCB in CTO PCI.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to July 25, 2023. The primary outcome was major advent cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The follow-up angiographic endpoints were late lumen enlargement (LLE), reocclusion and restenosis.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 511 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, patients were predominantly male (72.9-85.7%) and over fifty years old. The summary estimate rate of MACE was 13.0% (95% CI 10.1%-15.9%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.428). The summary estimate rates of cardiac death and MI were 2.2% (95% CI 0.7%-3.7%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.873) and 1.2% (95% CI -0.2-2.6%, I2 = 13.7%, p = 0.314), respectively. Finally, the pooled incidences of TLR and TVR were 10.1% (95% CI 5.7%-14.5%, I2 = 51.7%, p = 0.082) and 7.1% (95% CI 3.0%-11.2%, I2 = 57.6%, p = 0.070), respectively. Finally, the summary estimate rates of LLE, reocclusion and restenosis were 59.4% (95% CI 53.5-65.3%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.742), 3.3% (95% CI 1.1-5.4%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.865) and 17.5% (95% CI 12.9-22.0%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.623), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, DCB has the potential to be used as a treatment for CTO in suitable patients.

Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloon and Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Small Vessel Disease (from the Dissolve SVD Randomized Trial)

The Dissolve drug-coated balloons (DCBs) is a new-generation DCB coated with paclitaxel of balloon surface, with midchain triglyceride excipient. Although the use of DCBs is a promising technique, little is known about the the clinical efficacy of the novel Dissolve DCB in coronary small vessel disease. This study was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial comparing the Dissolve DCB with the Resolute drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with a reference vessel diameter ≥2.25 and ≤2.75 mm. Patients with a reference vessel diameter ≥2.00 and <2.25 mm were enrolled in the very small vessel registry. The angiographic and clinical follow-up were planned at 9 months and 1 year in all patients, respectively. The primary end point was 9-month in-segment percentage diameter stenosis. A total of 247 patients with small vessel disease from 10 Chinese sites were included (Dissolve DCB, n = 118; Resolute DES, n = 129); 30 patients were treated with the DCB in the very small vessel cohort. The 9-month in-segment percentage diameter stenosis was 31.2 ± 2.0% with Dissolve DCB versus 26.1 ± 2.1% with Resolute DES; the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 10.3% (p for noninferiority = 0.0002). At 12 months, the DCB and DES groups were associated with similar rates of target lesion failure (8.5% vs 6.1%, p = 0.28) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (20.9% vs 13.6%, p = 0.12). In conclusion, the Dissolve DCB was noninferior to the Resolute DES for the primary end point of 9-month in-segment percentage diameter stenosis in this multicenter, head-to-head, randomized trial (a safety and efficacy study of Dissolve In Treatment Of Coronary Small Vessel Disease; NCT03376646).

Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Through meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCB), compared with drug-eluting stents (DES) or uncoated devices, in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcomes were late lumen loss (LLL), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on clinical indications, whether DCBs were used with a systematic or bailout stent, and types of DESs.

RESULTS

The present meta-analysis demonstrated that DCBs elicit significantly lower incidences of TLR, MACE, and LLL, compared with uncoated devices, and similar incidences, compared with DESs, in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Subgroup analysis indicated that DCBs used with a bailout stent achieved lower incidences of binary restenosis and myocardial infarction, compared with uncoated devices, and provided less LLL than DESs. DCBs showed similar rates of TLR and MACE, with significantly less LLL, than DESs in treating de novo small-vessel diseases. The clinical efficacy of DCBs was similar to that of second-generation DES.

CONCLUSION

Overall, DCB is favored over bare metal stent alone in treating de novo coronary lesions. DCBs appear to be a promising alternative to DESs in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

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 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.

Crystalline sirolimus-coated balloon (cSCB) angioplasty in an all-comers, patient population with stable and unstable coronary artery disease including chronic total occlusions: rationale, methodology and design of the SCORE trial

BACKGROUND

A decade ago, the iopromide-paclitaxel coated balloon (iPCB) was added to the cardiologist's toolbox to initially treat in-stent restenosis followed by the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. In the meantime, DES technologies have been substantially improved to address in-stent restenosis and thrombosis, and shortened anti-platelet therapy. Recently, sirolimus-coated balloon catheters (SCB) have emerged to provide an alternative drug to combat restenosis.

METHODS

The objective of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of a novel crystalline sirolimus-coated balloon (cSCB) technology in an unselective, international, large-scale patient population. Percutaneous coronary interventions of native stenosis, in-stent stenosis, and chronic total occlusions with the SCB in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome were included. The primary outcome variable is the target lesion failure (TLF) rate at 12 months, defined as the composite rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), cardiac death or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary outcome variables include TLF at 24 months, ischemia driven TLR at 12 and 24 months and all-cause death, cardiac death at 12 and 24 months.

DISCUSSION

Since there is a wealth of patient-based all-comers data for iPCB available for this study, a propensity-score matched analysis is planned to compare cSCB and iPCB for the treatment of de novo and different types of ISR. In addition, pre-specified analyses in challenging lesion subsets such as chronic total occlusions will provide evidence whether the two balloon coating technologies differ in their clinical benefit for the patient.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04470934.

Long-term outcomes of less drug-eluting stents by the use of drug-coated balloons in de novo coronary chronic total occlusion intervention: A multicenter observational study

Background

Data on drug-coated balloons (DCB) for de novo coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) are limited. We aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of substitution of drug-eluting stents (DES) by DCB.

Methods

We compared the outcomes of less DES strategy (DCB alone or combined with DES) and DES-only strategy in treating de novo coronary CTO in this prospective, observational, multicenter study. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death during 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were late lumen loss (LLL) and restenosis until 1-year after operation.

Results

Of the 591 eligible patients consecutively enrolled between January 2015 and December 2019, 281 (290 lesions) were treated with DCB (DCB-only or combined with DES) and 310 (319 lesions) with DES only. In the DCB group, 147 (50.7%) lesions were treated using DCB-only, and the bailout stenting rate was relatively low (3.1%). The average stent length per lesion in the DCB group was significantly shorter compared with the DES-only group (21.5 ± 25.5 mm vs. 54.5 ± 26.0 mm, p < 0.001). A total of 112 patients in the DCB group and 71 patients in the DES-only group (38.6% vs. 22.3%, p < 0.001) completed angiographic follow-up until 1-year, and LLL was much less in the DCB group (-0.08 ± 0.65 mm vs. 0.35 ± 0.62 mm, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in restenosis occurrence between the two groups (20.5% vs. 19.7%, p > 0.999). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of MACE at 3-year (11.8% vs. 12.0%, log-rank p = 0.688) was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

Percutaneous coronary intervention with DCB is a potential "stent-less" therapy for de novo CTO lesions with satisfactory long-term clinical results compared to the DES-only approach.

Novel application of drug-coated balloons in coronary heart disease: A narrative review

The incidence of coronary heart disease (CAD) has soared over the years, and coronary intervention has become an increasingly important therapeutic approach. The past decade has witnessed unprecedented developments in therapeutic medical instruments. Given that drug-coated balloons bring many benefits, they are indicated for an increasing number of conditions. In this article, we review the results of current clinical trials about drug-coated balloons and summarize their safety and clinical progression in different coronary artery diseases, laying the groundwork for basic research, and clinical therapeutics of this patient population.

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.

Long-Term Outcomes With Drug-Eluting Balloon for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis and De Novo Lesions: The Novara-Biella-Trento (NOBITRE) Registry

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) of in-stent restenosis or particular anatomical subsets. We provide a real-world analysis of the prognostic determinants and long-term outcomes of patients treated with DCB for any lesion in a comprehensive multicenter registry. The primary study endpoint was the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (MACE: composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) at the longest available follow-up. We included 267 patients (196 treated for in-stent restenosis and 71 for de novo lesions), with a median follow-up of 616 [368–1025] days. MACE occurred in 70 (26.2%) of the patients and related with higher rates of in-stent restenosis (P = .04), longer and more type C lesions ( P = .05 and P = .04). At multivariate Cox-regression, type C lesions emerged as the only independent predictor of MACE (adjusted OR [95% CI] = 1.83[1.13–2.97], P = .014), mainly driven by target vessel revascularization (adjusted OR[95% CI] = 1.78[1.05–2.95], P = .03) not conditioning survival. In-stent restenosis emerged as major determinant of TLF (adjusted OR[95% CI] = 2.59[1.17–5.75], P = .02). DCBs represent a treatment option for any lesion; however, type C and restenotic lesions are associated with an increased risk of MACE and target lesion failure, where the optimal strategies for patients’ selection and lesion preparation are still undefined.

Comparison of 2 Different Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons in Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) offer an effective treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR). The Genoss DCB is a novel paclitaxel-coated balloon with a shellac plus vitamin E excipient that enhances drug delivery to the target lesion, minimizing restenosis.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the angiographic efficacy, clinical safety, and effectiveness of the novel shellac plus vitamin E-based DCB in a randomized controlled trial designed to enable regulatory approval of this new device in South Korea.

METHODS

This noninferiority trial randomized patients experiencing their first ISR to the novel shellac plus vitamin E-based DCB or the reference SeQuent Please iopromide-based DCB in a 1:1 ratio. All patients underwent planned angiographic and clinical follow-up at 6 months. The study was powered for the primary endpoint of 6 months in-segment late lumen loss (LLL).

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients from 7 centers were randomized to either the novel shellac plus vitamin E-based DCB group (n = 41) or the reference iopromide-based DCB group (n = 41). The 6-month in-segment LLL was 0.15 ± 0.43 mm with the novel DCB compared with 0.24 ± 0.39 mm with the reference device. The 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.13 mm, lower than the noninferiority limit of 0.29 mm, achieving noninferiority (P for noninferiority = 0.001). Major cardiovascular events were comparable between 2 groups at 6 months (7.7% for the novel DCB vs 10.3% for the reference DCB; P = 0.692).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter, head-to-head comparison randomized trial, the novel shellac plus vitamin E-based DCB showed a comparable result to the reference iopromide-based device for the primary endpoint of 6-month in-segment LLL for the treatment of coronary ISR. (Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Genoss® DCB and SeQuent® Please in Korean Patient With Coronary In-stent Restenosis; NCT04405063).

Clinical Results of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment in a Large-Scale Multicenter Korean Registry Study

Current percutaneous coronary intervention has significant limitations related to the implanted current metallic stent. The “leave nothing behind” strategy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment has showed potential performance to overcome current treatment. However, studies in this issue are still limited by moderate numbers of patients. Therefore, we performed Stent Failure Research DCB registry study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB treatment for in-stent restenosis or de novo lesions. The registry finally included 2,509 patients treated with DCB and revealed the favorable clinical outcome of DCB treatment.

Background and Objectives

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of treatment with drug-coated balloon (DCB) in a large real-world population.

Methods

Patients treated with DCBs were included in a multicenter observational registry that enrolled patients from 18 hospitals in Korea between January 2009 and December 2017. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 12 months.

Results

The study included 2,509 patients with 2,666 DCB-treated coronary artery lesions (1,688 [63.3%] with in-stent restenosis [ISR] lesions vs. 978 [36.7%] with de novo lesions). The mean age with standard deviation was 65.7±11.3 years; 65.7% of the patients were men. At 12 months, the primary outcome, TLF, occurred in 179 (6.7%), 151 (8.9%), 28 (2.9%) patients among the total, ISR, and de novo lesion populations, respectively. A history of hypertension, diabetes, acute coronary syndrome, previous coronary artery bypass graft, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, B2C lesion and ISR lesion were independent predictors of 12 months TLF in the overall study population.

Conclusions

This large multicenter DCB registry study revealed the favorable clinical outcome of DCB treatment in real-world practice in patient with ISR lesion as well as small de novo coronary lesion.

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.

Comparison Between Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for Revascularization of Coronary Arteries: The SIRPAC (SIRolimus-PAClitaxel) Study

OBJECTIVE

Our study sought to compare the 12-month clinical outcome of patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) vs. sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) during coronary angioplasty.

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons represent an established therapeutic tool for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). A comparison between PCB and SCB is still lacking.

METHODS

We performed an indirect comparison between two cohorts of patients previously included into two investigator-driven registries with clinical primary endpoints, 494 treated with the Elutax SV PCB (AR Baltic, Lithuania) from the DCB RISE registry, and 596 treated with the Magic Touch SCB (Concept Medical, India) from the EASTBOURNE registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 12-month clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a total of 580 patients were well matched for baseline clinical and procedural characteristics and were analyzed. At 12 months there was no significant difference between the matched DCB RISE and EASTBOURNE cohorts in terms of the primary endpoint MACE (10.3% DCB RISE vs. 10.7% EASTBOURNE, p = 0.892). No significant difference was observed also regarding the rate of TLR (7.9% DCB RISE vs. 8.3% EASTBOURNE; p = 0.879, respectively). By multivariate analysis, insulin-dependent diabetes was the only predictor of MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In the SIRPAC study, the first indirect comparison between paclitaxel-coated and sirolimus coated balloons, no significant difference in clinical endpoints were found at 12-month follow-up. Randomized studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

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.

Paclitaxel Coated Balloon vs. Bare Metal Stent for Endovascular Treatment of Symptomatic Vertebral Artery Origin Stenosis Patients: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Stenting treatment for refractory symptomatic patients with vertebral artery origin stenosis (VAOS) is safe; however, there is a high rate of in-stent restenosis. Although drug-eluting stents can reduce the incidence of restenosis to some extent, there is still a risk caused by stent fracture. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been proven to reduce the rate of restenosis in peripheral and coronary artery disease. DCB can prevent inflammation caused by extraneous material stimulation and allow the subsequent treatment that is characteristic of "leave nothing behind." The purpose of this trial is to compare the efficacy and safety of DCB and bare metal stent (BMS) in the treatment of VAOS. Method/Design: This trial is a 1:1 randomized, controlled, multicenter, non-inferiority trial that compares the DCB to BMS in terms of angiographically assessed target lesion binary restenosis (≥50%) at 12 months in endovascular treatment of symptomatic patients with VAOS. Discussion: A total of 180 patients with symptomatic VAOS who match the trial eligibility criteria will be randomized 1:1 to treatment with DCB (n = 90) or BMS (n = 90). An angiographic core laboratory-adjudicated target lesion binary restenosis (≥50%) at 12 months of follow-up was selected as primary efficacy endpoint to assess the DCB treatment effect. A clinical events committee will assess the safety endpoints of all-cause death, target vessel related transient ischemic attack and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke events. A data safety monitoring board will periodically review safety data for subject safety, the study conduct, and progress. In this trial, randomization is only allowed after successful pre-dilatation. We anticipate that this trial will provide rigorous data to clarify whether DCBs are beneficial in patients with symptomatic VAOS. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03910166.

Drug-coated balloon for vertebral artery origin stenosis: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is a potential treatment for patients with low restenosis risk in vertebral artery origin stenosis (VAOS). However, the clinical data of long-term outcome are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a DCB in patients with severe VAOS.

METHODS

A prospective, non-randomized, single-center pilot study enrolled 30 patients with severe VAOS treated with DCB between 2017 and 2018. The first 20 patients were treated with a balloon-to-vessel ratio of predilation (pBVR)＜0.8 (small-size balloon predilation) and the following 10 patients were treated with a pBVR 0.8-1.0 (large-size balloon predilation). Primary safety endpoints included 30-day death, stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA). The main efficacy outcome was restenosis at 6 months, defined as a peak systolic velocity >140 cm/s measured by Doppler ultrasound. Long-term outcomes, including TIAs, stroke, death, and modified Rankin Scale score, were followed up to 2 years.

RESULTS

Technical success (<50% residual stenosis) was achieved in 26 patients (mean age 66.2±7.0; seven women). Four patients received bailout stenting and were excluded. Ultrasound confirmed restenosis at 6 months in 10 (38.5%) of 26, which was significantly less frequent in LSBP (LSBP vs SSBP=10% vs 56.3%, p<0.05). No adverse events occurred within 30 days of treatment. 19 patients were followed up for 2 years, with two deaths due to cancer.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that DCB is a safe approach for VAOS. The relatively low restenosis rate indicates the its potential long-term efficacy for VAOS. Future randomized controlled trials to confirm its efficacy are warranted.

Drug coated balloons and their role in bifurcation coronary angioplasty: appraisal of the current evidence and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Coronary Bifurcation lesions are technically more challenging and Bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a challenge with unpredictable and sub-optimal clinical and angiographic results. Drug-Coated Balloons (DCB) are emerging devices in the field of coronary intervention with promising results that may overcome some of drug eluting stents limitations and may have potential advantages in complex bifurcation PCI.

AREAS COVERED

We have performed a re-appraisal about the issues with current bifurcation PCI techniques and the use of DCB in the treatment of Bifurcation lesions. Several studies performed utilizing DCB are described and critically appraised. Over the recent years, there have been tremendous developments in the DCB technology, lesion preparation, clinical experience, and clinical data during bifurcation PCI. The current review describes the advances in the DCB technology, pharmacokinetics, role of excipients, and optimization of the technique. Special emphasis in lesion preparation and potential pathway of using DCB in bifurcation PCI is proposed.

EXPERT OPINION

Although different proof of concept and pilot studies have shown promising results in treatment of bifurcation lesions with DCB, larger randomized trials and/or international consensus papers are required to enable worldwide translation of this idea to clinical practice.

Small vessel coronary artery disease: How small can we go with myocardial revascularization?

The issue of small coronary artery atherosclerosis represents an intriguing aspect of coronary artery disease, which is related with higher rates of peri- and post-procedural complications and impaired long-term outcome. This problem is further complicated by the unclear definition of small coronary vessel. Recent randomized controlled trials have provided new data on possible novel interventional treatment of small coronary vessels with drug-coated balloons instead of traditional new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation. Also, the conservative management represents a therapeutic option in light of the results of the recent ISCHEMIA trial. The current article provides an overview of the most appropriate definition, interventional management, and prognosis of small coronary artery atherosclerosis.

A HYbrid APproach Evaluating a DRug-Coated Balloon in Combination With a New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of De Novo Diffuse Coronary Artery Disease: The HYPER Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

To assess feasibility, safety and efficacy of hybrid approach, consisting in a combination of modern drug-eluting stent (DES) and drug-eluting balloon (DCB), for treatment of de-novo diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUNDS

Contemporary DES are associated with a persistent risk of major cardiovascular events, due to in-stent thrombosis and restenosis. The hybrid approach, reducing the permanent metallic cage length, is supposed to mitigate the risk of device-related adverse events, especially in diffuse CAD.

METHODS

This is a prospective, non-randomized, observational, multicenter study intended to obtain data from 100 consecutive patients affected by de-novo diffuse CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a hybrid approach, consisting in the combined use of DES and DCB in contiguous coronary segments. The study is recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT03939468.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint is a device oriented composite end-point (DOCE) of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) in DES- and/or DCB-treated segment. DOCE will be assessed at 12-months follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This will be the first study investigating the feasibility, safety and efficacy of hybrid DES/DCB approach for the treatment of de-novo diffuse CAD. Here we describe the rationale and the design of the study.

Treatment of Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus- or Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate a novel sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) compared with the best investigated paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB).

BACKGROUND

Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. PCBs are an established treatment option outside the United States with a Class I, Level of Evidence: A recommendation in the European guidelines. However, their efficacy is better in bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.

METHODS

Fifty patients with DES ISR were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm²) with a clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please Neo, 3 μg/mm²) in coronary DES ISR. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events, and individual clinical endpoints 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 0.21 ± 0.54 mm in the PCB group versus 0.17 ± 0.55 mm in the SCB group (p = NS; per-protocol analysis). Clinical events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This first-in-man comparison of a novel SCB with a crystalline coating shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus [Rapamycin] Coated Balloon or a Paclitaxel Coated Balloon [FIM LIMUS DCB]; NCT02996318).

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent in small coronary artery lesions: angiographic analysis from the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial

BACKGROUND

The randomized BASKET-SMALL 2 trial showed non-inferiority for treatment with drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo lesions in small coronary arteries regarding clinical endpoints at 1 year. In this predefined substudy, we investigated the angiographic findings in patients undergoing a clinically indicated follow-up angiography during the study phase.

METHODS

Eight-hundred and eighty-three patients underwent PCI with either DES or DCB in a culprit vessel < 3 mm in diameter for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome. Event-driven re-angiographies and the corresponding images at baseline were analyzed for angiographic endpoints.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eleven patients (117 lesions, 66 DES versus 51 DCB) presented for an unscheduled re-angiography at median 5.7 months after the index procedure. At baseline, mean reference vessel diameter was 2.05 mm and the residual in-segment stenosis after the index procedure was less in DES compared to DCB (23.7% vs 33.8%, p = 0.001). At follow-up angiography, diameter stenosis in the DES group (29.0%) was still somewhat smaller than after DCB angioplasty (35.8%) when adjusting for time since PCI (p = 0.047), whereas lumen loss (LL) did not differ between the two treatment arms (LL-DES 0.06 mm vs LL-DCB 0.10 mm, p = 0.20). Eight patients following DES implantation presented with a complete occlusion of the target lesion compared to no occlusion in the DCB group (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinically indicated follow-up angiography within 1 year showed no difference in LL. Complete thrombotic vessel occlusions were found only in the DES group.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov ; number, NCT01574534.

Drug-coated Balloons for Small Coronary Vessel Interventions: A Literature Review

Newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic coronary artery disease. However, some lack of efficacy has been reported in small coronary arteries based on higher rates of target lesion restenosis, thrombosis and MI resulting in repeated interventions. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis in both bare metal stents and DES and they can deliver an anti-proliferative drug into the vessel wall without implanting a stent. DCBs are a promising technique for selected de novo coronary lesions, especially in small vessel disease. In this article, the current evidence for the treatment of small vessel disease with DCBs will be reviewed.

Paclitaxel-coated balloons: a safe alternative to drug-eluting stents for coronary in-stent restenosis

Collapse

Novel, vessel anatomy adjusting drug-coated balloon-Preclinical evaluation in peripheral porcine arteries

BACKGROUND

The diameter of balloons or stents is selected according to the estimated reference vessel diameter and do not adapt to the vessel anatomy. The aim of the present preclinical studies was to investigate a novel, vessel anatomy adjusting hypercompliant drug-coated balloon catheter (HCDCB).

METHODS

Hypercompliant balloon membranes were coated in a constricted state with high drug density. Drug adherence was investigated in vitro, transfer to the porcine peripheral arteries and longitudinal distribution in vivo. In young domestic swine, neointimal proliferation was induced by vessel overstretch and continuous irritation by permanent stents. Uncoated hypercompliant balloons (HCB), and standard uncoated balloons and drug-coated balloons (DCB) served as controls. Efficacy was assessed by angiography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and histomorphometry.

RESULTS

HCDCB lost 18.0 ± 3.9% of dose during in vitro simulated delivery to the lesion. Drug transfer to the vessel wall was 13.9 ± 6.4% and drug concentration was 1,044 ± 529 ng/mg tissue. Four weeks after treatment, the histomorphometric neointimal area was smaller with HCDCB versus uncoated HCB (2.39 ± 0.55 mm² vs. 3.26 ± 0.72 mm² , p = .038) and area stenosis (OCT) was less (11.6 ± 6.9% vs. 24.7 ± 9.7%, p = .022). No premature death occurred and no in-life clinical symptoms or treatment-associated thrombi were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

HCDCB were found to inhibit excessive neointimal proliferation. Balloon adaption to different vessel diameters and shapes may provide drug-delivery in irregular lumen and facilitate balloon selection.

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent in de novo small coronary vessel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloon as a novel therapeutic strategy has been used to treat restenosis in cases of bare metal and drug-eluting stents. However, evidence of its safety and efficacy is scarce in de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the drug-coated balloon and the drug-eluting stent.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies published up to October 17, 2018. Studies comparing the drug-coated balloon with the drug-eluting stent strategy in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease (reference diameter, <3 mm) were identified. The clinical outcomes were nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, all-cause death, target lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. Data were analyzed using the statistical software RevMan (version 5.3). Fixed effects models were performed to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Sensitivity analyses were used to detect potential sources of heterogeneity, while subgroup analyses were implemented to assess the differential effects.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized controlled studies were identified. Six studies including a total of 1800 patients compared the differences between the drug-coated balloon and the drug-eluting stent strategies in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. The results indicated that the drug-coated balloon strategy was associated with a significant reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.90, P = .02) compared with the drug-eluting stent strategy, while insignificant inter-strategy differences were observed in cardiac death (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73-3.33, P = .25), all-cause death (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25-1.23, P = .15), target lesion revascularization (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73-2.1, P = .43), and target-vessel revascularization (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59-1.52, P = .84).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that the drug-coated balloon strategy is noninferior to the drug-eluting stent strategy, delivering a good outcome in nonfatal myocardial infarction, and can be recommended as an optimal treatment strategy in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. Larger randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to further confirm the benefits of the drug-coated balloon strategy.

Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are a novel therapeutic strategy for small native coronary artery disease. However, their safety and efficacy is poorly defined in comparison with drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

BASKET-SMALL 2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial. 758 patients with de-novo lesions (<3 mm in diameter) in coronary vessels and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive angioplasty with DCB versus implantation of a second-generation DES after successful predilatation via an interactive internet-based response system. Dual antiplatelet therapy was given according to current guidelines. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of DCB versus DES regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation) after 12 months. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 4% in MACE. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01574534.

FINDINGS

Between April 10, 2012, and February 1, 2017, 382 patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group and 376 to DES group. Non-inferiority of DCB versus DES was shown because the 95% CI of the absolute difference in MACE in the per-protocol population was below the predefined margin (-3·83 to 3·93%, p=0·0217). After 12 months, the proportions of MACE were similar in both groups of the full-analysis population (MACE was 7·5% for the DCB group vs 7·3% for the DES group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·58-1·64], p=0·9180). There were five (1·3%) cardiac-related deaths in the DES group and 12 (3·1%) in the DCB group (full analysis population). Probable or definite stent thrombosis (three [0·8%] in the DCB group vs four [1·1%] in the DES group; HR 0·73 [0·16-3·26]) and major bleeding (four [1·1%] in the DCB group vs nine [2·4%] in the DES group; HR 0·45 [0·14-1·46]) were the most common adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

In small native coronary artery disease, DCB was non-inferior to DES regarding MACE up to 12 months, with similar event rates for both treatment groups.

FUNDING

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical AG.