Role of Drug-coated Balloons in Small-vessel Coronary Artery Disease

A Meta-Analysis of 3-Year Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Small-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease

Background

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) may be a viable alternative to drug-eluting stents (DES) for de novo small caliber coronary artery lesions. However, there remains a lack of data regarding the long-term efficacy of this approach.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after 3-year follow-up among patients randomized to DCB versus DES for the treatment of small caliber coronary arteries with reference vessel diameter between 2 and 3 mm.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from their inception to July 2023 for randomized controlled trials comparing DCB versus DES for small caliber coronary artery disease. The primary end point was MACE at 3-year follow-up. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using random effects meta-analytic models.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials (n = 1,402) were included. In total, 706 patients were randomized to DCB and 696 to DES. Participants were mostly male (74%), with a mean/median age ranging from 60 to 68 years. Pooled data across trials for MACE showed wide CIs, with little indication of DES superiority over DCB (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.36-1.41). Most individual components of MACE were inconclusive. There was a potential signal for a reduction of target vessel thrombosis with DCB compared to DES (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.06-1.08).

Conclusions

Although sample sizes are small, 3-year outcomes suggest that DCB may be a reasonable alternative to DES for the treatment of small coronary arteries.

Drug-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease - A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have shown promising results for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and small vessel disease (SVD). However, data comparing the treatment efficacy of different DCBs are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

AGENT Japan is a prospective randomized controlled trial that compares the Agent balloon coated with a low-dose formulation of paclitaxel (2 μg/mm2) to the SeQuent Please paclitaxel-coated balloon (3 μg/mm2) for the treatment of SVD. Patients with target lesion length ≤28 mm and reference diameter between ≥2.00 and <3.00 mm were randomized 2 : 1 for treatment with Agent (n=101) or SeQuent Please (n=49). This trial also includes a separate single-arm substudy evaluating the clinical safety and effectiveness of Agent in patients with ISR. The primary endpoint of 6-month target lesion failure (TLF) was observed in 3.0% of Agent and 0.0% of SeQuent Please patients (difference=3.0%; 97.5% upper confidence bound [UCB]=9.57%, which is less than the prespecified margin of 13.2%; Pnon-inferiority=0.0012). There were no deaths or thrombosis, and angiographic and quality-of-life outcomes were comparable between groups. The AGENT Japan ISR substudy (n=30) primary endpoint was met because the one-sided 97.5% UCB for 6-month TLF (3.3%) was significantly less than the study success criterion of 15.1% (97.5% UCB=9.8%; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this study demonstrate good clinical outcomes with the Agent DCB when used to treat patients with SVD or ISR.

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.