Drug-Coated balloons vs drug-eluting stents for the treatment of small coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

Individual patient data meta-analysis of paclitaxel-coated balloons vs. drug-eluting stents for small-vessel coronary artery disease: the ANDROMEDA study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In randomized clinical trials of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo small-vessel coronary artery disease (SV-CAD), paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty showed mid-term angiographic or clinical non-inferiority to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Nevertheless, these trials have sample size limitations, and the relative safety and efficacy beyond the first year remain uncertain.

METHODS

The ANDROMEDA study was a collaborative, investigator-initiated, individual patient data meta-analysis comparing 3 year clinical outcomes between PCB angioplasty and DES implantation for the treatment of de novo SV-CAD. Multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science) were searched from May 2010 to June 2024 to identify eligible trials. All the following eligibility criteria were required: (i) random allocations of treatments; (ii) patients with SV-CAD; (iii) treatment with PCB or DES; and (iv) clinical follow-up of at least 36 months. The primary and co-primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and target lesion failure (TLF), respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023479035).

RESULTS

Individual patient data from three randomized trials, including a total of 1154 patients and 1360 lesions, were combined. At 3 years, PCB was associated with a lower risk of MACE compared with DES [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.96], due to a lower risk of myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. This benefit persisted after multivariable adjustment (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.96), but did not reach statistical significance in the two-stage analysis (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43-1.04). At the landmark analysis, the risk of MACE between groups was consistent over time. At 3 years, TLF was not significantly different between PCB and DES groups. Reconstructed time-to-event information from a fourth trial was included in a sensitivity analysis (1384 patients and 1590 lesions), showing consistent results in terms of TLF (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63-1.20). The comparison between PCB and second-generation DES did not reveal significant differences in 3 year TLF (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.70-1.50).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PCI for de novo SV-CAD, PCB angioplasty is associated with a reduction in MACE and a non-significant difference in TLF at 3 year follow-up compared with DES implantation. The restriction of the comparator group to second-generation DES does not alter the main conclusions. Larger trials comparing contemporary devices at a more prolonged follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings.

Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with small coronary artery disease: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have promising results in the management of large coronary artery lesions (CAD), still their role in treating small CAD is not well established. We aimed to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy and safety of DCBs in patients with small CAD.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, web of science, Ovid, and Cochrane Central from inception until 30 March, 2023. We included all relevant studies that compared DCB versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in small CAD patients undergoing PCI. We reported clinical outcomes as MACE, all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, TLR, TVR, and stent thrombosis, while angiographic outcomes were late lumen loss (LLL), mean lumen diameter (MLD), net luminal gain (NLG), and in-segment binary restenosis.

RESULTS

Twenty studies comprising 18,469 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence rate of MACE was 9.4% in the DCB group compared to 9.9% in the DES group, without a significant difference in the risk of MACE (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.22, p = 0.78). Moreover, DCB significantly decreased MLD and NLG compared to DES, with the following values, respectively (MD= -0.19, 95% CI: -0.32 to -0.06, p < 0.001, and MD -0.21, 95% CI: -0.40 to -0.01, p = 0.04). On the other hand, DCB was associated with higher odds in the risk of in-segment binary restenosis (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.68, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

DCB is an alternative approach to DES in the management of small CAD and should be validated in daily clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023413068.

Predictors of optimal angiographic lesion outcomes in drug-coated balloon treatment for de novo coronary artery disease

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment is an emerging strategy for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), but procedural optimization remains uncertain. This study analyzed 317 patients who underwent DCB-based intervention for de novo CAD and angiographic follow-up: SR (successful, stent-like result: diameter stenosis < 20% at follow-up angiography, n = 84, 93 lesions) and Non-SR (n = 224, 358 lesions) groups. Baseline clinical and lesion characteristics were similar, except that SR lesions had larger diameter. In SR lesions, specialty balloons were more frequently utilized (p = 0.025), and maximal balloon diameter and balloon-to-artery ratio were significantly greater compared to Non-SR lesions (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008). At a median 8-month follow-up, SR lesions exhibited larger minimal luminal diameter (MLD) and lower late lumen loss, with negative values indicating positive vessel remodeling. In multivariate analysis, post-DCB MLD (odds ratio 1.17 per 0.1 mm increase, p < 0.001) and balloon-to-artery ratio (odds ratio 1.43 per 0.1 increase, p = 0.002) were independent predictors for successful angiographic outcomes with thresholds of 1.95 mm for post-DCB MLD and 1.13 for balloon-to-artery ratio. In 47 patients, IVUS guidance resulted in balloon-to-artery ratio of 1.23 as calculated by QCA. The study demonstrated the importance of achieving maximal post-DCB MLD through aggressive lesion predilation, underscoring the need for refining procedural strategies. NCT04619277 (Impact of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment in De Novo Coronary Lesion).

Comparative efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in small vessel coronary artery disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Small vessel coronary artery disease presents challenges in percutaneous coronary intervention due to higher restenosis rates with traditional treatments. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) offer a potential alternative, but their efficacy compared to drug-eluting stents (DES) remains debated. This meta-analysis aims to provide updated insights into the comparative outcomes of DCBs versus DES in small coronary artery disease.

MAIN TEXT

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review identified seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCBs with DES for small vessel CAD. Data were extracted and pooled for analysis, assessing outcomes including target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent/vessel thrombosis, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.4, employing random-effects models and forest plots with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 1,808 patients across seven RCTs, no significant difference was found in TVR between DCB and DES over 3 years (OR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.58, 1.54], p = 0.82). While initial analyses favoured higher TLR incidence in DES, the trend shifted towards DCB over time, with a non-significant association favouring DCB at 3 years (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.26, 1.00], p = 0.05). DCB use was associated with significantly higher rates of MACE and MI at the 3-year mark (MACE: OR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.38, 0.79], p = 0.001; MI: OR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.17, 0.7], p = 0.003), while mortality rates converged between the two interventions over time. Vessel thrombosis rates were similar between DCB and DES.

CONCLUSIONS

While DCBs may offer comparable efficacy to DES in terms of TVR and TLR over shorter durations, there is a concerning trend towards higher rates of MACE and MI associated with DCB use at the 3-year mark. Further research with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up durations, and consistent inclusion criteria is needed to elucidate the optimal treatment strategy for small vessel CAD. Until then, DES may be considered a safer option for managing small vessel CAD.

Drug-Coated Balloons for the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease: A Review

Importance

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty has emerged as an alternative to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) as well as de novo coronary artery disease.

Observations

DCBs are balloons coated with antiproliferative agents and excipients, whose aim is to foster favorable vessel healing after appropriate lesion preparation. By providing homogeneous antiproliferative drug delivery in the absence of permanent foreign body implantation, DCBs offer multiple advantages over DES, including preservation of vessel anatomy and function and positive vessel remodeling. As such, DCBs have become appealing for treatment of ISR, small-vessel disease, long lesions, simplification of bifurcation procedures, and treatment of diffuse distal disease after recanalization of chronic total occlusions. In addition, patients with high bleeding risk, diabetes, and acute coronary syndrome might also stand to benefit from DCB angioplasty.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although commercially available in numerous countries now for more than a decade, DCB only recently obtained US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of coronary ISR. Moreover, preliminary results from newer generation devices tested in different clinical scenarios have raised the interest of the international community. Accordingly, an up-to-date review is timely particularly with the anticipated wave of research on the matter. Herein, this review encompasses DCB technologies, their worldwide usage, details on relevant indications, and key procedural aspects of DCB angioplasty.

Application of Drug-Coated Balloons in Complex High Risk and Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

There is a growing trend of patients with significant comorbidities among those referred for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Consequently, the number of patients undergoing complex high risk indicated PCI (CHIP) is rising. CHIP patients frequently present with factors predisposing to extensive drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, such as bifurcation and/or heavily calcified coronary lesions, which exposes them to the risks associated with an increased stent burden. The drug-coated balloon (DCB) may overcome some of the limitations of DES, either through a hybrid strategy (DCB and DES combined) or as a leave-nothing-behind strategy (DCB-only). As such, there is a growing interest in extending the application of DCB to the CHIP population. The present review provides an outline of the available evidence on DCB use in CHIP patients, which comprise the elderly, comorbid, and patients with complex coronary anatomy. Although the majority of available data are observational, most studies support a lower threshold for the use of DCBs, particularly when multiple CHIP factors coexist within a single patient. In patients with comorbidities which predispose to bleeding events (such as increasing age, diabetes mellitus, and hemodialysis) DCBs may encourage shorter dual antiplatelet therapy duration-although randomized trials are currently lacking. Further, DCBs may simplify PCI in bifurcation lesions and chronic total coronary occlusions by reducing total stent length, and allow for late lumen enlargement when used in a hybrid fashion. In conclusion, DCBs pose a viable therapeutic option in CHIP patients, either as a complement to DES or as stand-alone therapy in selected cases.

Culprit-Lesion Drug-Coated-Balloon Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Presenting with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI)

Background/Objectives: Drug-eluting stents (DESs) remain the standard of treatment for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, complications such as stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis still pose significant risks. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged as a promising alternative, but data for this clinical scenario are still scarce. The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DCB culprit-lesion primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in patients presenting with STEMI and to evaluate its impact on the microcirculatory territory. Methods: An observational retrospective study was conducted across six European centers. Results: In total, 118 patients were included. Of these, 82.2% were male, with a median age of 67 years (IQR 36-92); 28% patients presented with stent thrombosis and most of them (94%) underwent paclitaxel-DCB-pPCI. The median follow-up was 23.2 months (IQR 6.7-77.3). Target lesion failure (TLF) rates were low (3.4%), with no differences between patients presenting with native coronary vessel and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs. 0%; p = 0.205). Overall mortality rates at follow-up were 7%, with only 1.8% attributed to cardiac causes. A target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate of 1.8% was observed, with no target vessel myocardial infarction reported. A subgroup of patients (42; 35.6%) underwent an adenosine-free angiographic microvascular resistance (AMR) analysis. The median AMR was 4.7 (3.9-5.5) and was greater in the stent thrombosis group than in the native coronary group (5.1 vs. 4.6; p = 0.038) with no clinical differences between patients based on the AMR. Conclusions: DCB-pPCI has emerged as an alternative potential treatment for patients presenting with STEMI, with few long-term adverse cardiac events. Despite the encouraging outcomes, these findings underscore the need for a large randomized clinical trial powered by a relevant clinical outcome in order to elucidate the role of DCB-PCI in patients presenting with STEMI.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Lesions in Large Vessels: A Study-Level Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) can be used as an alternative to drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with de novo small vessel coronary artery disease. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of solely using DCB versus DES in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo coronary lesions in large vessels.

METHOD

A database search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and http://Clinicaltrials.gov for trials comparing DCB only with DES in treating de novo coronary lesions in large vessels. Efficacy outcomes included coronary angiography (CAG), follow-up minimal lumen diameter (MLD), and late luminal loss (LLL). Safety outcomes included target lesion failure [TLF: cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR)] and their individual components.

RESULTS

We included seven randomized control trials (RCTs) with 816 patients, of which 422 and 394 patients were in the DCB and DES groups, respectively. MLD measured during the 6-12 months follow-up in the DCB group was statistically significantly smaller than in the DES group (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07, P = 0.003, I2 = 52%). LLL measured at 6-12 months follow-up was statistically significantly lower in the DCB group than in the DES group (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.05, P = 0.003, I2 = 60%). TLF, cardiac death, MI, and TLR, were not statistically significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Use of DCB was associated with less LLL at 6-12 months than DES and was not associated with any increase in adverse clinical events. This data suggests DCB are as effective in treating de novo coronary lesions in large vessels as DES.

Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-coated balloons in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The efficacy of drug-coated balloons (DCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) for coronary artery disease (CAD) remains inconclusive. Despite paclitaxel's common use in both DES and DCB, there is a lack of meta-analyses comparing paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of DES and DCB with paclitaxel. A systematic literature search of the Medline and Cochrane databases yielded six randomized controlled trials with 951 patients (1:1 ratio). Primary endpoints were mortality, target lesion vascularization (TLV), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Secondary endpoints included in-device binary stenosis, in-segment binary stenosis, late luminal loss (LLL), post-minimal lumen diameter (MLD), and post-diameter stenosis. Within the study populations, the incidence of previous MI was significantly lower in the PES group than in the PCB group (26.70% vs. 39.22%, OR:0.56, 95% CI [0.41-0.76], p = 0.0002). The meta-analysis results showed that mortality (OR:1.57, 95% CI [0.67-3.66], p = 0.29), TLV (OR:0.74, 95% CI [0.37-1.48], p = 0.39), MI (OR:1.76, 95% CI [0.79-3.88], p = 0.16), TVR (OR:0.76, 95% CI [0.51-1.12], p = 0.16), and MACEs (OR, 1.11; 95% CI [0.48-2.58]; p = 0.81) did not exhibit significant differences between the PES and PCB groups in CAD. Furthermore, in stent or in balloon binary stenosis (OR:0.80, 95% CI [0.34-1.87], p = 0.60), in segment binary stenosis (OR:1.16, 95% CI [0.48-2.80], p = 0.74), LLL (MD:0.03, 95% CI [-0.11 to 0.17], p = 0.65), post MLD (MD:0.04, 95% CI [-0.23 to 0.30], p = 0.77), and post diameter stenosis (MD:-5.48, 95% CI [-13.88 to 2.92], p = 0.20) were similar in both groups. Our comprehensive analysis concludes that both PES and PCB manifest comparable effectiveness and safety in CAD management.

A 2024 scientific update on the clinical performance of drug-coated balloons

Continuous advances in the field of interventional cardiology have led to the development of drug-coated balloons (DCB). These represent a promising device for overcoming the well-known limitations of traditional metallic stents, which are associated with a persistent yearly increased risk of adverse events. This technology has the ability to homogeneously transfer the drug into the vessel wall in the absence of a permanent prosthesis implanted in the coronary vessel. Robust data support the use of DCB for the treatment of in-stent restenosis, but there is also currently growing evidence from long-term follow-up of large randomised clinical trials regarding the use of these devices in other scenarios, such as de novo small and large vessel disease, complex bifurcations, and diffuse coronary disease. Other critical clinical settings such as diabetes mellitus, high bleeding risk patients and acute coronary syndromes could be approached in the upcoming future by using DCB, alone or as part of a blended strategy in combination with drug-eluting stents. There have been important scientific and technical advances in the DCB field in recent years. The purpose of this paper is to review the most current data regarding the use of DCB, including the mid- and long-term follow-up reports on the safety and efficacy of this novel strategy in different clinical and angiographic scenarios.

Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Strategy for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Backgrounds

Many clinical trials have demonstrated the value of drug-coated balloons (DCB) for in-stent restenosis. However, their role in de novo lesions is not well documented. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the DCB-only strategy compared to other percutaneous coronary intervention strategies for de novo coronary lesions.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published up to May 6, 2023. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events and late lumen loss.

Results

A total of eighteen trials with 3336 participants were included. Compared with drug-eluting stents, the DCB-only strategy was associated with a similar risk of major adverse cardiac events (risk ratio (RR) = 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59 to 1.37, P = 0.631) and a significant decrease in late lumen loss (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.04, P = 0.021). This effect was consistent in subgroup analysis regardless of indication, follow-up time, drug-eluting stent type, and dual antiplatelet therapy duration. However, DCBs were inferior to DESs for minimum lumen diameter and percentage diameter stenosis. The DCB-only strategy showed significantly better outcomes for most endpoints compared to plain-old balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents.

Conclusions

Interventions with a DCB-only strategy are comparable to those of drug-eluting stents and superior to plain-old balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents for the treatment of selected de novo coronary lesions. Additional evidence is still warranted to confirm the value of DCB before widespread clinical utilization can be recommended.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for De Novo Coronary Lesions

PURPOSE

Data are limited on the long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in comparison to drug-eluting stent (DES) for de novo coronary lesions. We investigated the long-term clinical outcomes of DCB treatment in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo coronary lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 103 patients scheduled for elective PCI for de novo non-small coronary lesions (≥2.5 mm) who were successfully treated with DCB alone were retrospectively compared with 103 propensity-matched patients treated with second-generation DES from the PTRG-DES registry (n=13160). All patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events [MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, target lesion thrombosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major bleeding] at 5 years.

RESULTS

At 5-year clinical follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rate of MACE were significantly lower in the DCB group [2.9% vs. 10.7%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.96; log-rank p=0.027]. There was a significantly lower incidence of TVR in the DCB group (1.0% vs. 7.8%; HR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.01-0.98; long-rank p=0.015), and there was major bleeding only in the DES group (0.0% vs. 1.9%; log-rank p=0.156).

CONCLUSION

At 5-year follow-up, DCB treatment was significantly associated with reduced incidences of MACE and TVR, compared with DES implantation, for de novo coronary lesions.

Predictors of bail-out stenting in patients with small vessel disease treated with drug-coated balloon percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have shown comparable results with drug-eluting stents in small vessel disease (SVD) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of target vessel revascularization and a reduced incidence of myocardial infarction. However, the relatively high rate of bail-out stenting (BOS) still represents a major drawback of DCB PCI.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to investigate the clinical, anatomic, and procedural features predictive of BOS after DCB PCI in SVD.

METHODS

We included all consecutive patients undergoing PCI at our institution between January 2020 and May 2022 who were treated with DCB PCI of a de novo lesion in a coronary vessel with a reference vessel diameter (RVD) between 2.0 and 2.5 mm. Angiographic success was defined as a residual stenosis <30% without flow-limiting dissection. Patients who did not meet these criteria underwent BOS.

RESULTS

A total of 168 consecutive patients and 216 coronary stenoses were included. The rate of bail-out stent was 13.9%. On multivariate analysis, DCB/RVD ratio (odds ratio [OR]: 4.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-11.29, p < 0.01), vessel tortuosity (OR: 7.00, 95% CI: 1.66-29.62, p < 0.01), distal vessel disease (OR: 5.66, 95% CI: 2.02-15.83, p < 0.01), and high complexity (Grade C of ACC/AHA classification) coronary stenoses (OR: 6.31, 95% CI: 1.53-26.04, p = 0.01) were independent predictors of BOS.

CONCLUSIONS

BOS is not an infrequent occurrence in DCB PCI of small vessels and is correlated with vessel tortuosity, distal diffuse vessel disease, higher lesion complexity, and balloon diameter oversizing.

Long-Term Outcome of Drug-Coated Balloon vs Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessels: PICCOLETO-II 3-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Native vessel coronary artery disease represents 1 of the most attractive fields of application for drug-coated balloons (DCBs). To date, several devices have been compared with drug-eluting stents (DESs) in this setting with different outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare the short- and long-term performance of the paclitaxel DCB with the everolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo lesions in small coronary vessel disease.

METHODS

PICCOLETO II (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment) was an academic, international, investigator-driven, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial in which patients were allocated to a DCB (n = 118) or DES (n = 114). We previously reported the superiority of DCBs regarding in-lesion late lumen loss at 6 months. Herein we report the final 3-year clinical follow-up with the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and its individual components.

RESULTS

The 3-year clinical follow-up (median 1,101 days; IQR: 1,055-1,146 days) was available for 102 patients allocated to DCB and 101 to DES treatment. The cumulative rate of all-cause death (4% vs 3.9%; P = 0.98), cardiac death (1% vs 1.9%; P = 0.56), myocardial infarction (6.9% vs 2%; P = 0.14), and target lesion revascularization (14.8% vs 8.8%; P = 0.18) did not significantly differ between DCBs and DESs. MACEs and acute vessel occlusion occurred more frequently in the DES group (20.8% vs 10.8% [P = 0.046] and 4% vs 0% [P = 0.042], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term clinical follow-up of the PICCOLETO II randomized clinical trial shows a higher risk of MACEs in patients with de novo lesions in small vessel disease when they are treated with the current-generation DES compared with the new-generation paclitaxel DCB. (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment [PICCOLETO II]; NCT03899818).

Stent Thrombosis and Restenosis with Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents: Predictors and Current Evidence

Iterations in stent technologies, advances in pharmacotherapy, and awareness of the implications of implantation techniques have markedly reduced the risk of stent failure, both in the form of stent thrombosis (ST) and in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, given the number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed worldwide every year, ST and ISR, albeit occurring at a fairly low rate, represent a public health problem even with contemporary DES platforms. The understanding of mechanisms and risk factors for these two PCI complications has been of fundamental importance for the parallel evolution of stent technologies. Risk factors associated with ST and ISR are usually divided into patient-, lesion-, device- and procedure-related. A number of studies have shown how certain risk factors are related to early (1 month) versus late/very late ST (between 1 month and 1 year and >1 year, respectively). However, more research is required to conclusively show the role of time-dependence of risk factors also in the incidence of ISR (early [1 year] or late [>1 year]). A thorough risk assessment is required due to the complex etiology of ST and ISR. The most effective strategy to treat ST and ISR is still to prevent them; hence, it is crucial to identify patient-, lesion-, device- and procedure-related predictors.

Small-vessel Coronary Angioplasty – Past, Present, and Future

Small-vessel disease (SVD) is an important subset of the population with coronary artery disease which may account for up to 30–70% according to different series. The challenges of SVD interventions are first to detect the true small-vessel size along with the true length of the lesion by intravascular imaging, then to decide about the interventional strategies as there is difficulty in delivering the stent to the lesion, dissections, under expansions of the stent during percutaneous coronary intervention with increased incidence of restenosis, and need for revascularization on the long term as well. Special attention is to be paid to this subset of patients of SVD as the treatment strategies need to be improvised than simple balloon dilatation or stenting with drug-eluting stents. At present, drug-coated or eluting balloon emerging as an improvised strategy for treating these patients with intravascular imaging. This article concentrates on the latest updates in SVD treatment.

Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of Elective Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in Comparison with Drug-Eluting Stents for De Novo Coronary Lesions in Large Vessels

We retrospectively examined the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo stenosis in large coronary vessels (LV; pre- or postprocedural reference vessel diameter ≥ 2.75 mm) in comparison with placement of drug-eluting stents (DESs).Consecutive de novo stenotic lesions in the LV electively and successfully treated with either PCB (n = 73) or DESs (n = 81) from January 2016 to December 2018 at our center were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of target lesion failure (TLF), including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The impact of PCB on TLF was examined using Cox proportional hazards models by including 39 variables. The secondary endpoint, angiographic restenosis, defined as a follow-up percent diameter stenosis > 50, was examined in angiographic follow-up lesions after PCB angioplasty (n = 56) and DES placement (n = 53). This retrospective investigation was conducted in July 2022.The mean PCB size and length were 3.23 ± 0.42 and 18.4 ± 4.3 mm, respectively. The TLF frequency in the PCB group (6.8% during the mean observational interval of 1536 ± 538 days) was not significantly different from that in the DES group (14.6%, 1344 ± 606 days, P = 0.097). PCB was not a significant predictor of TLF in the univariate analysis (hazard ratio: 0.424; 95%CI: 0.15-1.21; P = 0.108). There was no angiographic restenosis after PCB angioplasty.The present observational single-center study showed that PCB for de novo stenosis in the LV had no significant adverse impact on TLF and had favorable angiographic outcomes.

Midterm safety and efficacy of elective drug-coated balloon angioplasty in comparison to drug-eluting stents for unrestrictive de novo coronary lesions: A single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of elective drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for unrestrictive de novo coronary stenosis in daily practice is not fully understood, especially in comparison to those of drug-eluting stents (DESs).

METHODS

A total of 588 consecutive de novo coronary stenotic lesions electively and successfully treated with either DCB (n = 275) or DESs (n = 313) between January 2016 and December 2019 at our medical center were included. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of target lesion failure (TLF), comprising cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The secondary angiographic efficacy endpoint was angiographic restenosis frequency, defined as a follow-up percent diameter stenosis of >50. The endpoints were compared after baseline adjustment using propensity score matching. In addition, the frequency and predictors of late lumen enlargement (LLE), defined as minus late luminal loss, were examined in 201 crude angiographic follow-up lesions after DCB angioplasty.

RESULTS

A total of 31 baseline parameters were adjusted to analyze 177 lesions in each group. The TLF frequencies (DCB group: 9.6 % during a mean observational interval of 789 ± 488 days vs. DES group: 10.2 %, 846 ± 484 days, p = 0.202) and cumulative TLF-free ratios of both groups were not significantly different (p = 0.892, log-rank test). The angiographic restenosis frequency in the DCB group (6.3 %, n = 128) was not significantly different from that of the DES group (10.1 %, n = 100, p = 0.593). LLE was observed in 45.3 % of entire lesions, and a type-A dissection was a significant predictor of LLE among 23 variables (odds ratio: 3.02, 95 % CI: 1.31-6.95, p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

The present single-center retrospective study revealed statistically equivalent midterm clinical safety and angiographic efficacy among both elective DCB angioplasty and DESs placements in the treatment of unrestrictive de novo coronary lesions. In our daily practice environment, LLE was achieved in approximately half after DCB angioplasty.

The comparative short-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon vs. drug-eluting stent for treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients

Purpose

This meta-analysis aimed to explore the comparative short-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) vs. drug-eluting stent (DES) for treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) for retrieving relevant studies regarding the comparison of DCB with DES in treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients until May 31, 2022. Two independent authors screened study, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Then, the meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software, version 5.4.

Results

We included 6 studies with 847 patients in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that DCB was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) [RR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-0.93; p = 0.02], myocardial infarction (MI) (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.94; p = 0.03), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.69; p < 0.001), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.63; p < 0.001), binary restenosis (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68; p = 0.005), and late lumen loss (LLL) [mean difference (MD), -0.31; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.27; p < 0.001], but was comparable technique success rate, death, minimal lumen diameter (MLD), and net lumen gain (NLG) to DES. There was no difference in long-term outcomes between these two techniques.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis shows that DCB is better than DES in the short-term therapeutic efficacy and safety of small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients. However, more studies are required to validate our findings and investigate the long-term effects and safety of DCB.

Sirolimus-coated balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent in de novo coronary artery disease: Rationale and design of the TRANSFORM II randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is a widely adopted strategy for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease. DES implantation conveys an inherent risk for short- and long-term complications, including in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis. Drug-coated balloons are emerging as an alternative approach to fulfill the "leaving nothing behind" principle and avoid long-term DES-related complications.

DESIGN

TRANSFORM II is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized clinical trial, testing a sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) versus the standard of care for native coronary vessels with a 2-3 mm diameter, in terms of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF; primary endpoint) and net adverse cardiovascular events (coprimary endpoint). Patients undergoing PCI will be randomized to be treated with either SCB or new-generation everolimus-eluting stent and will be followed up clinically for up to 60 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months with DES, a sample size of 1325 patients was chosen to ensure an 80% power to detect a 1.5% lower incidence in the SCB group with a type I error rate of 0.05. The TRANSFORM II trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (identification number NCT04893291). Several substudies, including an optical coherence tomography assessment at 9 months (intracoronary imaging substudy), will investigate the study device in different clinical and lesion settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The randomized TRANSFORM II trial will determine whether a novel SCB is noninferior to a current everolimus-eluting stent when adopted for the treatment of de novo lesions in coronary vessels with a diameter between 2 and 3 mm.

Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: Rationale for Standardized Definition and Critical Appraisal of the Literature

Small vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is present in 30% to 67% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention according to different series, representing an unmet clinical need in light of an increased risk of technical failure, restenosis, and need for repeated revascularization. The definition of small vessel is inconsistent across trials, and no definite cutoff value has yet been determined. The lack of consensus on the definition of small vessel CAD has contributed to the high degree of heterogeneity in the safety and efficacy of the various revascularization options. Therefore, the aim of this article is to provide a critical appraisal of existing reports and to propose a reference vessel diameter of <2.5 ​mm definition of small vessel CAD to guide future clinical trials and clinical decision-making.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in very small vessels: a prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial

Background

Evidence of the use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) in de novo large or small coronary lesions and in-stent restenosis has accumulated over the past years. Due to their anatomical peculiarity, the treatment of very small vessels (VSV) (lumen diameter <2 mm) is still a controversial issue. Studies that examine the use of DCB in VSV are limited. We investigated the efficacy and safety of using DCBs for the de novo coronary lesions in VSV undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

In this prospective, single-arm study, we enrolled adult patients with coronary artery disease from six centers in China. A total of 29 patients had VSV with a target lesion stenosis ≥70% were included. All patients were treated with DCB. The primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months of follow-up. The secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events including target lesion revascularization, death, or myocardial infarction at 9 months of follow-up.

Results

Twenty-nine eligible patients with VSV were enrolled between November 2019 to May 2020. Angiographic and clinical follow-up were completed at 9 months in 18 (56.25%) patients (7 patients refused to final angiography; 2 failed to finish DCB angioplasty; 1 patient request; 1 other causes of death). The mean diameter of the reference vessel of the target lesion was 1.71±0.27 mm, the minimum lumen diameter (MLD) of the target lesion before operation was 0.31±0.24 mm, the average LLL of the target lesion was 0.13±0.28 mm, and the MLD of the target vessel immediately after operation was (1.19±0.20 mm) and at the 9-month follow-up (1.06±0.31 mm) were significantly higher than those before operation (P=0.043). One patient (5.56%) underwent revascularization. No myocardial infarction or death occurred during follow-up after treatment with DCBs.

Conclusions

DCB can be a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in VSV.

Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Angioplasty Outcomes in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients with De Novo Small Coronary Vessels Disease

Background

The revascularization of small vessels using drug-eluting stents remains challenging. The use of the drug-coated balloon is an attractive therapeutic strategy in de novo lesions in small coronary vessels, particularly in the diabetic group. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of DCB-only angioplasty in small vessel disease.

Methods

A total of 1198 patients with small vessel disease treated with DCB-only strategy were followed. Patients were divided into the diabetic and nondiabetic groups. Clinical and angiographical follow-up were organized at 12 months. The primary endpoints were target lesion failure and secondary major adverse cardiac events.

Results

There was a significantly higher rate of target lesion failure among diabetic patients compared to nondiabetic [17 (3.9%) vs. 11 (1.4%), P=0.006], taken separately, the rate of target lesion revascularization significantly differed between groups with a higher rate observed in the diabetic group [9 (2%) vs. 4 (0.5%), P=0.014]. Diabetes mellitus remained an independent predictor for TLF (HR: 2.712, CI: 1.254–5.864, P=0.011) and target lesion revascularization (HR: 3.698, CI: 1.112–12.298, P=0.033) after adjustment. However, no significant differences were observed between groups regarding the target vessel myocardial infarction (0.6% vs. 0.1%, P=0.110) and MACE [19 (4.4%) vs. 21 (2.7%), P=0.120].

Conclusion

Drug-coated balloon-only treatment achieved lower incidence rates of TLF and MACE. Diabetes is an independent predictor for target lesion failure and target lesion revascularization at one year following DCB treatment in small coronary vessels. We observed no significant differences between groups regarding MACE in one year.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Use of Bioactive Polymers for Intervention and Tissue Engineering: The New Frontier for Cardiovascular Therapy

Coronary heart disease remains one of the leading causes of death in most countries. Healthcare improvements have seen a shift in the presentation of disease with a reducing number of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs), largely due to earlier reperfusion strategies such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Stents have revolutionized the care of these patients, but the long-term effects of these devices have been brought to the fore. The conceptual and technologic evolution of these devices from bare-metal stents led to the creation and wide application of drug-eluting stents; further research introduced the idea of polymer-based resorbable stents. We look at the evolution of stents and the multiple advantages and disadvantages offered by each of the different polymers used to make stents in order to identify what the stent of the future may consist of whilst highlighting properties that are beneficial to the patient alongside the role of the surgeon, the cardiologist, engineers, chemists, and biophysicists in creating the ideal stent.