Safety and feasibility of a PAclitaxel-eluting balloon angioplasty in Primary Percutaneous coronary intervention in Amsterdam (PAPPA): one-year clinical outcome of a pilot study

Contemporary Use of Drug-Coated Balloons for Coronary Angioplasty: A Comprehensive Review

The interventional treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) has undergone significant improvements thanks to technological innovations. Nowadays, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is the standard of care for the treatment of CAD. Nevertheless, the non-negligible incidence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and suboptimal results in various anatomical settings has led to the development of drug-coated balloons (DCBs). DCBs are catheter-based balloons whose surface is coated with an anti-proliferative drug (mainly Paclitaxel or Sirolimus) loaded onto the balloon surface with different technologies and dose concentrations. In the beginning, these devices were used for the treatment of ISR showing an excellent efficacy profile in the inhibition of intimal hyperplasia. Subsequently, several studies evaluated their use in other angiographical and clinical contexts such as de novo lesions, small vessel disease, diffuse coronary disease, bifurcation lesions, acute coronary syndromes, high-bleeding risk and diabetic patients. This comprehensive review aims to describe the main DCB platforms on the market, their fields of application with the main supporting studies and their future perspectives.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in 2024

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to reducing the mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) even in cardiogenic shock and is now the standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) proposed an expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2018 and updated in 2022. Recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) published the guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndrome in 2023. Major new updates in the 2023 ESC guideline include: (1) intravascular imaging should be considered to guide PCI (Class IIa); (2) timing of complete revascularization; (3) antiplatelet therapy in patient with high-bleeding risk. Reflecting rapid advances in the field, the Task Force on Primary PCI of the CVIT group has now proposed an updated expert consensus document for the management of ACS focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2024 version.

Treatment of Patients With De Novo Small-Vessel Coronary Lesions: Analysis of Six Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents

Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are indicated for the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions. Since the evidence comparing these two types of devices is limited, we undertook a meta-analysis on this issue. Our meta-analysis compared the efficacy of PCB vs. DES in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary lesions of size ≤ 2.75 mm. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The two treatments under comparison were PCB vs DES; the endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Our statistical methods were based on the reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves using the IPDfromKM algorithm. After this reconstruction, our statistical calculations included hazard ratio (HR) estimation with a 95% confidence interval (CI), assessment of between-trial heterogeneity, and risk of bias for each RCT. Our literature search identified six RCTs that met our inclusion criteria (PICCOLETO, BELLO, RESTORE SVD, BASKET-SMALL2, PICCOLETO-II, and DISSOLVE). In our main analysis, the six treatment groups using PCB were compared with the six control groups using DES. The results showed an HR of 1.029 (95%CI, 0.7446 to 1.422; P=0.86) over a follow-up of 36 months. Heterogeneity analysis across the six control groups showed worse outcomes in the BELLO trial and better outcomes in the three trials employing a limus-eluting stent. To evaluate trial heterogeneity through the comparison of the six PCB arms, five trials showed similar outcomes while the BELLO trial fared significantly worse. Risk of bias for each RCT was appropriate.  Our results indicate that in de novo small-vessel coronary lesions, PCB and DES showed similar outcomes, despite some cross-study variability. Our results provided meta-analytic confirmation that no recommendations can be made in favor of PCB or DES in the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions based on current data.

Sirolimus-coated balloon in acute and chronic coronary syndromes: the PEACE study, a subanalysis of the EASTBOURNE registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The PEACE study (Performance of a sirolimus-eluting balloon strategy in acute and chronic coronary syndromes) investigated for the first time whether a sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) (Magic Touch, Concept Medical, India) is associated with different outcomes depending on whether it is used in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS).

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis from the all-comers EASTBOURNE Registry (NCT03085823). Out of 2083 patients enrolled, an SCB was used to treat 968 (46.5%) ACS and 1115 (53.5%) CCS patients. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization at 12 months, while secondary endpoints were angiographic success and major adverse cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics, mean reference vessel diameter and mean lesion length were comparable between ACS and CCS. Predilatation was more commonly performed in ACS (P=.007). SCB was inflated at a standard pressure in both groups with a slight trend toward longer inflation time in ACS. Angiographic success was high in both groups (ACS 97.4% vs CCS 97.7%, P=.820) with limited bailout stenting. Similarly, at 12 months the cumulative incidence of target lesion revascularization (ACS 6.6% vs CCS 5.2%, P=.258) was comparable between ACS and CCS. Conversely, a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events in acute presenters was mainly driven by myocardial infarction recurrencies (ACS 10.4% vs CCS 8.3%, P=.009). In-stent restenosis showed a higher proportion of target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events than de novo lesions, independently of the type of presentation at the index procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

This SCB shows good performance in terms of acute and 1-year outcomes independently of the clinical presentation.

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.

Novel Stentless Strategy With Perfusion and Drug-Coated Balloons for Treating Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

The challenge with the stentless strategy is that the method of optimal predilatation, and predictors of success remain unknown. Studies involving the stentless strategy prior to predilatation are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of a new stentless strategy for treating acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using gradual, prolonged predilation with a perfusion balloon combined with a drug-coated balloon (DCB).

Methods

This was a single-center, prospective, single-arm study. A total of 30 patients with ACS underwent gradual, prolonged predilation using a perfusion balloon for 10 minutes, followed by additional dilation using a DCB. The primary end point was target vessel failure at 24 months. Secondary end points were a composite of acute end points, including stentless strategy success rate, procedural complications, final grade of coronary dissection, acute coronary occlusion, in-hospital major adverse cardiac events, and a chronic end point of target vessel failure at 24 months.

Results

A successful stentless strategy was achieved in 24 patients (80%), and 2 (8.3%) patients required ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization in the chronic phase. Six (20%) patients required stent placement due to type C dissection or acute recoil. No acute occlusion and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events were reported.

Conclusions

A novel stentless strategy using predilation with a perfusion balloon and DCB may be helpful for the revascularization of patients with ACS.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Laser vaporization of atherothrombotic burden before drug-coated balloon application in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Two-year outcomes of the laser-DCB trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine whether the combination of excimer laser coronary atherectomy (ELCA) and drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty can provide feasible clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with 8-month and 2-year scheduled follow-up angiography.

BACKGROUND

Intracoronary thrombus elevates the risk of interventional treatment in patients with STEMI and hampers drug absorption into the vasculature released from DCB.

METHODS

Sixty-two patients with STEMI within 24 h after the onset of symptoms were enrolled in this prospective, single-center, single-arm study.

RESULTS

The laser catheter was successfully crossed distal to the culprit lesion in all cases. No ELCA-related adverse events occurred. Bail-out stenting was required in two patients (3.2%) after adjunctive ballooning; thus, the remaining 60 patients were completed with DCB angioplasty without stenting. Scheduled angiography at 8 months and 2 years was completed in 100% and 85.2%, respectively, and minimal lumen diameters were 3.4 ± 0.5, 3.4 ± 0.6, and 3.4 ± 0.5 mm after the procedure, at 8 months and at 2 years, respectively. Binary restenosis was observed in five patients (8.1%) in whom target lesion revascularization was performed. The duration of dual antiplatelet therapy was 2.3 ± 2.2 months, and neither abrupt vessel closure, reinfarction, cardiac death nor major bleeding was observed.

CONCLUSION

A combination of DCB angioplasty with ELCA is a feasible therapeutic option for STEMI.

Safety and Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Prespecified Analysis of BASKET-SMALL 2

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established treatment strategy for coronary artery disease. Randomized data on the application of DCBs in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are limited. We evaluated the impact of clinical presentation (ACS versus chronic coronary syndrome) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing DCB or drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment in a prespecified analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial (Basel Kosten Effektivitäts Trial-Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Interventions).

METHODS

BASKET-SMALL 2 randomized 758 patients with small vessel coronary artery disease to DCB or DES treatment and followed them for 3 years regarding major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization).

RESULTS

Among 758 patients, 214 patients (28.2%) presented with an ACS (15 patients [7%], ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction; 109 patients [50.9%], non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction; 90 patients [42.1%], unstable angina pectoris). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the incidence of the primary end point by randomized treatment in patients with ACS (hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.19-1.26] for DCB versus DES) or chronic coronary syndrome (hazard ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.67-2.47] for DCB versus DES). There was no significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment effect (P for interaction, 0.088). For cardiac death (P for interaction, 0.049) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (P for interaction, 0.010), a significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment was seen at 1 year with lower rates of these secondary end points in patients with ACS treated by DCB. At 3 years, there were similar major adverse cardiac event rates throughout groups without significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment (P for interaction, 0.301). All-cause mortality was higher in ACS compared with chronic coronary syndrome; however, there was no difference between DCB and DES irrespective of clinical presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this subgroup analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial, there was no interaction between indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (acute versus chronic coronary syndrome) and treatment effect of DCB versus DES in patients with small vessel coronary artery disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01574534.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) update 2022

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to reducing the mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) even in cardiogenic shock and is now the standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Interventional and Therapeutics (CVIT) society proposed an expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2018. Updated guidelines for the management of AMI were published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in 2017 and 2020. Major changes in the guidelines for STEMI patients included: (1) radial access and drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) were recommended as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization before hospital discharge (either immediate or staged) is now considered as Class IIa recommendation. In 2020, updated guidelines for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) patients, the followings were changed: (1) an early invasive strategy within 24 h is recommended in patients with NSTEMI as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization in NSTEMI patients without cardiogenic shock is considered as Class IIa recommendation, and (3) in patients with atrial fibrillation following a short period of triple antithrombotic therapy, dual antithrombotic therapy (e.g., DOAC and single oral antiplatelet agent preferably clopidogrel) is recommended, with discontinuation of the antiplatelet agent after 6 to 12 months. Furthermore, an aspirin-free strategy after PCI has been investigated in several trials those have started to show the safety and efficacy. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the CVIT group has now proposed the updated expert consensus document for the management of AMI focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2022 version.

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.

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.

Long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): 3-year follow-up of a randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DESs) regarding clinical outcome up to 12 months, but data beyond 1 year is sparse. We aimed to test the long-term efficacy and safety of DCBs regarding clinical endpoints in an all-comer population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

In this prespecified long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients from 14 clinical sites in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria with de-novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned 1:1 to DCB or second-generation DES and followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events (ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation [TVR]), all-cause death, probable or definite stent thrombosis, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding type 3-5). Analyses were performed on the full analysis set according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for 1 month after DCB and 6 months after DES with stable symptoms, but 12 months with acute coronary syndromes. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01574534 and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between April 10, 2012, and Feb 1, 2017, of 883 patients assessed, 758 (86%) patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group (n=382) or the DES group (n=376). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 15% in both the DCB and DES groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·68-1·45; p=0·95). The two groups were also very similar concerning the single components of adverse cardiac events: cardiac death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 5% vs 4%, HR 1·29, 95% CI 0·63-2·66; p=0·49), non-fatal myocardial infarction (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 6%, HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·45-1·51; p=0·52), and TVR (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 9%, HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·58-1·56; p=0·83). Rates of all-cause death were very similar in DCB versus DES patients (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 8%, HR 1·05, 95% CI 0·62-1·77; p=0·87). Rates of probable or definite stent thrombosis (Kaplan-Meier estimate 1% vs 2%; HR 0·33, 95% CI 0·07-1·64; p=0·18) and major bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2% vs 4%, HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·17-1·13; p=0·088) were numerically lower in DCB versus DES, however without reaching significance.

INTERPRETATION

There is maintained efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease up to 3 years.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical.

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 balloons for coronary artery disease: current concepts and controversies

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are a novel development for percutaneous coronary intervention. The first successful application was in-stent restenosis but in recent years, strong evidence has been released for its use in native small-vessels disease. Additional applications such as acute myocardial infarction, chronic total occlusion and bifurcation lesions are still under investigation. This article reviews the key studies evaluating the role of DCBs in several settings and reports on interesting cases where DCBs showed positive results for high-risk patients with neoplasm, as well as with high bleeding risk, planned surgery or renal injury. We also highlight a new biodegradable therapy for coronary bifurcation treatment, in which a bioresorbable vascular scaffold is implanted in the main branch, completed with a DCB angioplasty in the side branch when a treatment is deemed necessary.

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).

Long-Term Follow-Up After Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis and De Novo Lesions Using SeQuent Please Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons

Managing patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains an important clinical challenge. In particular, large, randomized trials assessing the effect of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in patients with de novo lesions are warranted. We investigated the effect of DEB on procedural complications, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in patients with drug-eluting stent ISR and de novo lesions. The clinical profiles of 238 consecutive patients treated for coronary ISR (n = 174) and de novo lesions (n = 64) using SeQuent Please paclitaxel-coated balloon were analyzed. Study end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). At 1-year follow-up, TLR and MACEs occurred with acceptably low rates (5.0% and 6.3%, respectively). At 2.00 (0.74) years of follow-up, there was a significant difference in the rates of TLR between the ISR and the de novo lesions groups (14.4% [ISR] vs 3.1% [de novo], P = .028), and the occurrence of MACEs distinctly increased in the ISR group compared to the de novo lesions group (21.8% vs 6.2%, P = .009). The long-term outcomes of the ISR group were inferior to those of the de novo group (TLR, log-rank P = .019; MACEs, log-rank P = .010). Drug-eluting balloon for ISR and de novo lesions of small coronary vessels is effective and safe.

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.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Elderly: Are Drug-coated Balloons the Future?

Background:

Balloon angioplasty revolutionised percutaneous treatment for coronary ar-tery disease four decades ago, but vessel-threatening dissections, elastic recoil and restenosis were major drawbacks to an otherwise successful long-lasting intervention. Subsequent advances with bare metal stents and then drug eluting stents followed, aiming to mitigate the risks of acute vessel closure and restenosis. However, stent implantation often necessitates dual antiplatelet therapy for a pro-longed period of time, which in itself can lead to adverse outcomes, especially in the frail elderly pop-ulation at higher risk of bleeding. More recently, bioabsorbable stents have been implemented in clini-cal practice enabling earlier intimal coverage of the stent and apposition.

However, another addition to the armamentarium of percutaneous coronary intervention is the use of drug-coated balloons without the need for deploying any coronary stents or scaffolds. Drug-coated balloons are semi-compliant balloons coated with an antiproliferative agent that is rapidly released on contact with the vessel intima exerting an anti-restenotic effect. The absence of a metallic scaffold means that the need for antiplatelet therapy can potentially be negated in the longer term if required. In this article, we will review the history of percutaneous coronary intervention and the available evi-dence for the appropriate use of drug-coated balloons especially in the elderly population.

Conclusion:

We will conclude this review by demonstrating the potential use of drug-coated balloon rather percutaneous stenting through case examples.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 2018

While primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to improve the mortality in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction even in cardiogenic shock, primary PCI is a standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. Whereas there are high numbers of available facilities providing primary PCI in Japan, there are no clear guidelines focusing on procedural aspect of the standardized care. Whilst updated guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction were recently published by European Society of Cardiology, the following major changes are indicated; (1) radial access and drug-eluting stent over bare metal stent were recommended as Class I indication, and (2) complete revascularization before hospital discharge (either immediate or staged) is now considered as Class IIa recommendation. Although the primary PCI is consistently recommended in recent and previous guidelines, the device lag from Europe, the frequent usage of coronary imaging modalities in Japan, and the difference in available medical therapy or mechanical support may prevent direct application of European guidelines to Japanese population. The Task Force on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) has now proposed the expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction focusing on procedural aspect of primary PCI.

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

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) represent a significant evolution in the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST elevation. However, stent-related adverse events have led to an introduction of drug-coated balloons (DCB) applied particularly to bifurcation lesions, in-stent restenosis and small vessel disease. The aim of this study was to determine whether a DCB-only strategy has a similar safety profile and equal angiographic and clinical outcomes to DES implantation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST elevation were randomized into DES and DCB groups of 37 and 38 patients, respectively. The study end-points were major adverse cardiac events and late lumen loss during the 6 months following the pPCI.

RESULTS

Reinfarction occurred in 5.4% of patients in the DES and 5.3% of patients in the DCB group after 1 month (risk ratio = 1.03, 95% CI [0.15-6.91], P = 0.98). After 6 months, major adverse cardiac events were reported in 5.4% of patients in the DES group and none in the DCB group (risk ratio = 5.13, 95% CI [0.25-103.42], P = 0.29). Late lumen loss in the DES group was 0.10 ± 0.19mm and -0.09 ± 0.09mm in the DCB group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A DCB-only strategy is safe and feasible in the pPCI setting and showed good clinical and angiographic outcomes in a 6-month follow-up period.

Soluble adhesion molecules in patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-coated balloon, drug-eluting stent or bare metal stent

Adhesion molecules play an important role in inflammation, atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease (CAD). These molecules are expressed on the surface of dysfunctional endothelial cells, causing inflammatory cells from the circulation to adhere and migrate through the endothelium. Their expression is upregulated in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The contact between stent struts and endothelium upregulates endothelial cell gene expression, endothelial cell activation and inflammation. The paclitaxel or sirolimus eluting stents inhibited expression of adhesion molecules in several studies and reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after drug-eluting stent (DES) over bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. Therefore, we propose that elevated serum levels of the soluble adhesion molecules after primary PCI in patients treated with BMS or DES implantation versus drug-coated balloon (DCB) application to the vulnerable coronary plaque might be a predictor of MACE and further adverse outcomes. Consequently, DCB-only strategy in patients with ACS might be a superior approach in comparison to BMS implantation and non-inferior approach when compared to DES implantation.

Drug-Eluting Balloons in the Treatment of Coronary De Novo Lesions: A Comprehensive Review

Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) have emerged as a new application in percutaneous coronary intervention. DEBs have proven successful in the treatment of in-stent restenosis, but their role in de novo lesions is less clear. This paper provides a review of the current studies where DEBs have been used in coronary de novo lesions, either as part of a DEB-only strategy or in combination with another device, mainly a bare metal stent (BMS). By searching Pubmed and Embase we were able to identify 52 relevant studies, differing in design, intervention, and clinical setting, including patients with small vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, complex long lesions, acute myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and elderly. In 23 studies, a DEB was combined with a BMS, 25 studies used a DEB-only strategy with only provisional BMS implantation, and four studies combined a DEB with a drug-eluting stent (DES). In the vast majority of studies, DEB in combination with BMS does not seem to improve clinical or angiographic outcome compared with DES, whereas a DEB-only strategy seems promising, especially when predilatation and geographical mismatch are taken into account. A lower risk of recurrent thrombosis with DEB compared with DES is not evident from the current studies. In conclusion, the main indication for DEB seems to be small vessel disease, especially in clinical scenarios in which a contraindication to dual antiplatelet therapy exists. The main approach should be a DEB-only strategy with only provisional bailout stenting, which has shown interesting results in different clinical scenarios. In general, larger randomized controlled studies with prolonged follow-up comparing DEB with best in class DES are warranted. Technical developments of DEBs including the use of different drugs might potentially improve the efficacy of such treatment.

Comparison of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Treatment and Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty for De Novo Coronary Lesions

PURPOSE

This study compared the angiographic outcomes of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) versus plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) treatment for de novo coronary artery lesions. At present, there is no available data comparing the efficacy of PCB versus POBA for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter retrospective observational study enrolled patients with de novo coronary lesions with a reference vessel diameter between 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm and lesion length ≤ 24 mm who were successfully treated with PCB or POBA. Angiographic measurements and quantitative coronary analysis were performed before and after the procedure, and at 9 months follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients (49 receiving PCB and 23 receiving POBA) were enrolled in this study. Late luminal loss was -0.12 ± 0.30 mm in the PCB group and 0.25 ± 0.50 mm in the POBA group (p<0.001). There was a higher percentage of binary restenosis (diameter stenosis ≥ 50%) in POBA, compared to PCB (30.4%, n=7 vs. 4.1%, n=2, p<0.001). Target vessel revascularization was higher in the POBA group (13.0%, n=3 vs. 0%, p=0.033).

CONCLUSION

PCB treatment of de novo coronary lesions showed better 9-month angiographic outcomes than POBA treatment alone.