Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty vs. Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis in the Routine Clinical Practice: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Drug-Coated Balloons in All-Comer Population-Are We There Yet?

With the advancement of interventional coronary procedures, drug-coated balloons have become an increasingly common alternative to drug-eluting stents in the treatment of various lesions. This paradigm shift stems from several advantages that DCBs entail, including a reduction in stent length burden, the possibility of late vessel positive remodeling, and the preservation of bifurcation anatomy. Conversely, several studies compared the efficacy of DCB treatment to stents or POBA in various scenarios. In this review, we will discuss the areas in which a DCB can be of paramount importance. We will begin by examining the role of DCBs in in-stent restenosis, for which the current practice guidelines do not clearly state the role of this technology, as opposed to the previous ones, in which it was mentioned as a first-line armamentarium. We will then discuss the indications and advantages of using DCBs in de novo lesions, concerning both small and large vessels, with growing emphasis on diffuse lesions. Lastly, we will address the current data on the use of DCBs in special scenarios such as the treatment of chronic total occlusion and left main and bifurcation lesions, without forgetting the primordial role of drug-eluting stents in all these lesions.

Comparison of Different PCI Strategies for Coronary DES In-stent Restenosis: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Background

Though superior to bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-eluting stents (DES) based PCI still have significant in-stent restenosis (ISR). Balloon angioplasty (BA), drug-coated balloons (DCBs), and DES are common modalities to treat ISR. The existing guidelines recommend treating ISR with either DCB or DES for BMS-ISR and DES-ISR, despite differences in the underlying mechanisms. Because DES are currently the most used stents worldwide, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare DES-ISR treatment strategies.

Methods

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for relevant studies published until March 30, 2024 and performed a Bayesian NMA to synthesize direct and indirect evidence. The primary outcome was a target lesion revascularization (TLR) at follow-up.

Results

Of 1202 studies, 30 were deemed eligible, with 15 being randomized studies. This included 8016 patients with DES-ISR who were assigned to 12 different PCI strategies. In the NMA for DES-ISR, paclitaxel-eluting stent (76.42) was the most effective strategy for TLR; paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) and scoring balloon angioplasty (75.88) for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) for target lesion failure (64.16), myocardial infarction (93.57), and stent thrombosis (98.53); and PCB for all-cause death (76.39) and cardiac death (83.74) based on SUCRA value. BA-based strategies were less effective alternatives for DES-ISR treatment with DCB or DES.

Conclusions

DES and DCB PCI such as PCB and SCB should be considered for treatment of coronary DES-ISR to achieve the most clinical efficacy and safety benefits for MACE. Further studies are required for more robust evidence on different treatment strategies.

Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Balloons for In-Stent Restenosis: Large Cohort Analysis and Single-Center Clinical Experience

BACKGROUND

The use of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) remains clinically relevant in the contemporary era of drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary interventions (DES-PCI), especially in the setting of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Our goal was to assess the outcomes of ISR patients in a large prospective registry.

METHODS

A total of 2329 consecutive patients with ISR-PCI (675 using DEB and 1654 with DES) were treated in our medical centre from 2010 to 2021. Clinical end points included mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. Clinical outcomes were adjusted for multiple confounders.

RESULTS

Mean ages (65.9 ± 11.0 vs 66.1 ± 10.5; P = 0.73) and percentages of female patients (16.6% vs 18.2%; P = 0.353) were similar between both ISR groups. Patients treated with DEB for ISR suffered more from diabetes, hypertension, and previous myocardial infarction (P < 0.01 for all) and presented more frequently with acute coronary syndrome (40.0% vs 34.4%; P = 0.01) compared with patients treated with DES for ISR. One-year MACE was significantly higher in the DEB ISR-PCI group (23.4% vs 19.6%; P = 0.002) compared to the DES ISR-PCI group, but no significant differences in mortality were observed at 1 year between the groups. After adjustment for multiple confounders, DEB ISR-PCI was not associated with increased MACE at 1 year (P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In our large experience, patients treated with DEB for ISR-PCI have higher baseline risk and sustained increased MACE rates compared with DES ISR-PCI patients. After adjustment for confounding variables, clinical outcomes are similar between the groups at 1 year after PCI.

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.

Coronary intravascular brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis: A review of the contemporary literature

Intracoronary stent restenosis (ISR) is a clinically relevant challenge in the modern era. Heterogeneity in patient- and lesion-specific factors can further compound this clinical challenge. Coronary intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) was the standard therapeutic approach for ISR prior to the advent of drug-eluting stents (DES). Despite prospective data describing the superiority of DES over IVBT for treating de novo ISR, IVBT remains a treatment option for patients with complex disease. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the historical and contemporary literature surrounding IVBT in order to elucidate its role in modern cardiac care and to describe opportunities for future investigations to improve patient selection. Herein, we provide a review of the contemporary literature describing IVBT as a safe and effective treatment option for patients with recurrent, refractory ISR after multilayer DES and no good surgical or mechanical option. Combination therapy with emerging technologies such as DCBs may further increase efficacy.

Changes to Drug-Coated Balloon Reimbursement Affect Peripheral Arterial Disease Patient Care: A Single-Center Experience

Introduction: Balloon angioplasty (BA) and stenting have long been the mainstays of endovascular therapy in peripheral arterial disease (PAD). However, the rise of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) has revolutionized care in recent years, with multiple clinical trials showing superiority over BA in maintaining primary patency and freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR). With the recent drop of the add-on payment for DCBs, a barrier for their use and consequently reduced therapy adoption in PAD might arise. We assessed if this affected physicians' behavior and hospital administration towards stocking and using DCBs.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated DCB utilization in 2017 versus 2018. Data were collected in two groups: 1) July 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017 - with pass-through code (PTC) - prior medical billing reimbursement - and 2) January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018 - without PTC - markedly reduced reimbursement. Patients treated for superficial femoral artery (SFA) or popliteal artery (POP) disease were included. The study aimed to determine changes in DCB utilization between the years with and without PTC, and we investigated the treatments that have replaced DCBs. Additionally, we aimed to collect data on readmissions and procedure costs compared to national data.

Results: From July through December 2017, 350 DCBs were used in 209 patients (1.675 DCBs per patient), while from January through June 2018, 256 DCBs were used in 180 patients (1.422 DCBs per patient) - a 15.07% reduction in DCBs per patient. The detailed numbers of DCB-treated patients were presented as fractions of total interventions in the groups with and without PTC.

Conclusion: The findings of this study show a statistically significant reduction in DCB usage following PTC withdrawal. There are several ethical implications to these findings, primarily highlighting patient beneficence and justice. Moving forward, it will be important to determine if this shift in treatment is owed to other treatment strategies such as BA, BA and atherectomy, BA and bare-metal stents (BMS), or BA and drug-eluting-stents (DES). The next steps should also include determining procedure costs and comparing readmission rates.