Value of Drug-Coated Balloons in Small-Vessel Disease

Comparison between drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in very small coronary artery interventions

The optimal management of very small vessel (reference diameter from 2.0 to 2.25 mm) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) for de-novo very small vessel interventions. We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who received very small vessel PCI with a DCB or DES between January 2018 and March 2021. The outcome measures were the incidence of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) within 1 year after PCI. MACCEs were defined as the composite of ischemia-driven TLR, all-cause death, non-fatal acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure requiring hospitalization. A total of 205 patients undergoing PCI with a DCB or DES were enrolled in this study. The procedural complication rate was 2.5% in the DES group and 1.7% in the DCB group (P = 1.000). After 1-year of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of TLR was 7.2% in the DCB group and 4.9% in the DES group (P = 0.530). The cumulative incidence of MACCEs was 10.6% in the DCB group and 12.7% in the DES group (P = 0.769). Only female gender, acute coronary syndrome on presentation, and dual antiplatelet therapy duration < 3 months were significantly associated with MACCEs at 1 year, but the use of DCB or DES was not. The use of DCBs or DESs in de novo very small vessel intervention was not associated with different outcomes at 1 year.

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.

Short- and long-term functional results following drug-coated balloons versus drug- eluting stents in small coronary vessels: The RESTORE quantitative flow ratio study

Background Immediate and long-term functional outcomes after percutaneous treatment of small vessel disease (SVD) with drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus drug-eluting stent (DES) remain unknown. The study sought to investigate whether treatment of de novo SVD with DCB yields similar functional results compared with DES, as judged with angiography-based quantitative flow ratio (QFR). Methods and results QFR was measured at pre-procedural, post-procedural and 9-month angiography in all available subjects from the non-inferiority RESTORE SVD China trial, in which patients were randomized to Restore DCB (n = 116) or Resolute DES (n = 114) study arms. Primary outcome of this analysis was 9-month QFR. Pre-procedural, post-procedural and 9-month QFR was performed in 84.8% (195/230), 83.0% (191/230) and 93.8% (181/193) cases, respectively. At 9 months, the QFR of DCB showed no significant difference to DES (0.88 ± 0.23 vs. 0.92 ± 0.12, p = 0.12). Both 9-month QFR and the QFR difference between post-procedure and 9-month follow-up were correlated with angiographic percentage of diameter stenosis and late loss, and predictive of 2-year clinical outcome. Conclusions Treatment of coronary SVD with DCB resulted in similar 9-month functional results compared with DES. This study provides evidences to the value of QFR as a mean of evaluating device performance after coronary revascularization. Clinical trial registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; ClinicalTrial.gov: Identifier: NCT02946307.