Clinical Results of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment in a Large-Scale Multicenter Korean Registry Study

Treatment of Peripheral Artery Disease Using Injectable Biomaterials and Drug-Coated Balloons: Safety and Efficacy Perspective

The possibility of injectable biomaterials being used in the therapy of peripheral artery disease (PAD) is investigated in this article. We conducted a thorough review of the literature on the use and efficacy of biomaterials (BMs) and drug-coated balloons (DCBs). These BMs included hydrogels, collagen scaffolds, and nanoparticles. These BMs could be used alone or in combination with growth factors, stem cells, or gene therapy. The treatment of peripheral artery disease with DCBs is increasingly common in the field of interventional angiology. Studies have been carried out to examine the effectiveness of paclitaxel-coated balloons such as PaccocathTM in lowering the frequency with which further revascularization operations are required. PCB angioplasty and angioplasty without paclitaxel did not significantly vary in terms of mortality, according to the findings of a recent meta-analysis that included the results of four randomized controlled studies. On the other hand, age was found to be a factor that predicted mortality. There was a correlation between the routine utilization of scoring balloon angioplasty along with DCBs and improved clinical outcomes in de novo lesions. In both preclinical and clinical testing, the SelutionTM DCB has demonstrated efficacy and safety, but further research is required to determine whether or not it is effective and safe over the long term. In addition, we reviewed the difficulties involved in bringing injectable BMs-based medicines to clinical trials, including the approval processes required by regulatory bodies. Injectable BMs have a significant amount of therapeutic promise for PAD, which highlights the need for more research and clinical studies to be conducted in this field. In conclusion, this research focuses on the potential of injectable BMs and DCBs in the treatment of PAD as well as the hurdles that must be overcome in order to translate these treatments into clinical trials. In this particular field, there is a demand for further research as well as clinical trials.

Impact of Insulin-Treated Compared to Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus on Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-Coated Balloons versus Drug-Eluting Stents in De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: The Randomized BASKET-SMALL 2 Trial

Background: We evaluated the outcome of PCI of de novo stenosis with drug-coated balloons (DCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) versus non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (NITDM). Methods: Patients were randomized in the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial to DCB or DES and followed over 3 years for MACE (cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcome in the diabetic subgroup (n = 252) was analyzed with respect to ITDM or NITDM. Results: In NITDM patients (n = 157), rates of MACE (16.7% vs. 21.9%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29–1.58, p = 0.37), death, non-fatal MI, and TVR (8.4% vs. 14.5%, HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–1.03, p = 0.057) were similar between DCB and DES. In ITDM patients (n = 95), rates of MACE (DCB 23.4% vs. DES 22.7%, HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.46–2.74, p = 0.81), death, non-fatal MI, and TVR (10.1% vs. 15.7%, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.18–2.27, p = 0.49) were similar between DCB and DES. TVR was significantly lower with DCB versus DES in all diabetic patients (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18–0.95, p = 0.038). Conclusions: DCB compared to DES for treatment of de novo coronary lesions in diabetic patients was associated with similar rates of MACE and numerically lower need for TVR both for ITDM and NITDM patients.