Procedural characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing drug-coated balloon angioplasty for de novo lesions in large coronary arteries: an observational study

Limited data exist regarding drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in de novo large coronary arteries. We sought to demonstrate procedural characteristics, residual stenosis, and clinical outcomes following DCB angioplasty for de novo lesions in large versus small coronary arteries. The study included 184 consecutive patients with 223 de novo coronary lesions undergoing paclitaxel DCB angioplasty between January 2019 and August 2020, who were divided according to whether the DCB diameter was ≥ 3.0 mm (large group, n = 58) or < 3.0 mm (small group, n = 125). The large group had a higher proportion of acute coronary syndrome more commonly with ostial, bifurcation, and calcified lesions in large vessels and received lesion preparation with more frequent use of scoring or cutting balloons and atherectomy devices compared to the small group. Postprocedural angiographic diameter stenosis was smaller in the large group compared to the small group (31% [22-37] vs. 35% [26-42], p = 0.032), and intravascular ultrasound revealed no significant difference in postprocedural area stenosis between the groups (66.2 ± 7.7% vs. 67.9 ± 7.8%; p = 0.26). The median follow-up duration was 995 days. The incidence of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or target lesion revascularization was similar between the groups (log-rank p = 0.41) and was influenced by the presence of acute coronary syndrome and anemia but not by DCB diameter. The rate of cardiovascular outcomes after DCB treatment was comparable in de novo large and small coronary arteries. Notably, well-planned lesion preparation with intravascular imaging guidance was prevalent in large vessels.

Coronary stent failure: role of a blended approach with drug-coated balloons for complex lesions

The management of coronary artery disease by means of percutaneous approach have been focused initially to overcome the recoil and acute occlusion after vessel ballooning; therefore, to develop and improve metallic stent platforms, and later drug-eluting technologies. Contemporarily, the necessity emerged to optimize interventional procedures using functional physiologic tests and intravascular imaging guidance, but still stent failures, especially in the complex lesion setting, continue to be not negligible. This comprehensive review is focused on the technology of drug-coated balloons as a tool to treat coronary artery disease without the need for metal implantation but still eluting antirestenotic drugs such as paclitaxel or sirolimus. We delve into these technologies, the drugs, the technical aspects of the deployment and the most updated evidence also proposing a dedicated interventional algorithm. There is solid data to support the use of drug-coated balloons in patients with in-stent restenosis and de-novo small coronary artery disease but also new evidence with promising results from recent studies indicate the feasibility of this approach in complex coronary interventions, bifurcation lesions and larger coronary vessels. In this state-of-the-art review, we also propose a blended approach based on the combination of drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons, keeping in mind the necessity to reduce the total stent length in order to reduce the long-term risk of complications.

Drug-Coated Balloon in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Ready for the Prime Time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are a major global health concern. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) has been endorsed as safe and effective in the management of culprit and non-culprit lesions of ACS. However, permanent metallic implants may have drawbacks, including the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and the risk of long-term stent-related complications. An alternative approach using drug-coated balloons (DCBs) is gaining growing interest, having the potential of delivering therapy directly to vulnerable plaques, avoiding the need for permanent metallic implants, and potentially allowing for better long-term medical treatment. Despite limited evidence, DCB is being explored in several patients' subgroups. This review aims to discuss the existing evidence regarding DCB in ACS management.

RECENT FINDINGS

DCB appears to be a promising strategy in the management of ACS, showing comparable angiographic and clinical results as compared to new-generation DES in relatively small clinical trials or large prospective registries. The advantage of avoiding permanent implants is particularly appealing in this setting, where DCB has the potential of delivering anti-atherogenic local therapy directly to vulnerable plaques still amenable to atherogenic regression. This review seeks to underline the theoretical background of DCB use and reports the available evidence in its support in the specific setting of ACS. In the context of ACS, the use of DCB is highly attractive, offering a dedicated anti-atherogenic local therapy, capable of addressing a broad range of vulnerable plaques and patients.

Drug-Coated Balloons in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are specialized coronary devices comprised of a semicompliant balloon catheter with an engineered coating that allows the delivery of antiproliferative agents locally to the vessel wall during percutaneous coronary intervention. Although DCBs were initially developed more than a decade ago, their potential in coronary interventions has recently sparked renewed interest, especially in the United States. Originally designed to overcome the limitations of conventional balloon angioplasty and stenting, they aim to match or even improve upon the outcomes of drug-eluting stents without leaving a permanent implant. Presently, in-stent restenosis is the condition with the most robust evidence supporting the use of DCBs. DCBs provide improved long-term vessel patency compared with conventional balloon angioplasty and may be comparable to drug-eluting stents without the need for an additional stent layer, supporting their use as a first-line therapy for in-stent restenosis. Beyond the treatment of in-stent restenosis, DCBs provide an additional tool for de novo lesions for a strategy that avoids a permanent metal scaffold, which may be especially useful for the management of technically challenging anatomies such as small vessels and bifurcations. DCBs might also be advantageous for patients with high bleeding risk due to the decreased necessity for extended antiplatelet therapy, and in patients with diabetes and patients with diffuse disease to minimize long-stented segments. Further studies are crucial to confirm these broader applications for DCBs and to further validate safety and efficacy.

Research progress of drug eluting balloon in arterial circulatory system

The arterial circulatory system diseases are common in clinical practice, and their treatment options have been of great interest due to their high morbidity and mortality. Drug-eluting balloons, as a new type of endovascular interventional treatment option, can avoid the long-term implantation of metal stents and is a new type of angioplasty without stents, so drug-eluting balloons have better therapeutic effects in some arterial circulatory diseases and have been initially used in clinical practice. In this review, we first describe the development, process, and mechanism of drug-eluting balloons. Then we summarize the current studies on the application of drug-eluting balloons in coronary artery lesions, in-stent restenosis, and peripheral vascular disease. As well as the technical difficulties and complications in the application of drug-eluting balloons and possible management options, in order to provide ideas and help for future in-depth studies and provide new strategies for the treatment of more arterial system diseases.

Cardiovascular Outcomes after Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Drug-Eluting Stent Placement for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by comparing with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement. Methods: By a systematic literature search, nine (five randomized controlled, two retrospective propensity-score matched, and two retrospective baseline-balanced) studies comparing the midterm clinical and angiographic outcomes after PCB angioplasty and DES placement were included, yielding 974 and 1130 ACS cases in PCB and DES groups, respectively. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac mortality (CM), all-cause mortality (ACM), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Late luminal loss (LLL) and bleeding events (BLD) were also estimated. Results: The frequencies of MACE in PCB and DES groups were 8.42% and 10.62%, respectively. PCB angioplasty had no significant impacts on all of MACE (risk ratio: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.68-1.18, p = 0.44), CM, ACM, MI, TVR, TLR, BLD, and LLL, compared to DES placement in random-effects model. Conclusions: The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed the feasibility of PCB angioplasty for the de novo lesions in patients with ACS in comparison with DES placement by the emergent procedures.

One-Year Outcome of Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients Undergoing Initial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) for De Novo Lesion

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the major treatment option in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recently, drug-coated balloon (DCB) utilization has been increasing globally, leading to the expected new strategy of "stent-less PCI." This study aimed to evaluate the one-year outcome of DCB compared to DES.

METHODS

Patients who underwent initial PCI for de novo lesions in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021 (n=337) were subjected to retrospective analysis. Among them, 75 patients were treated with DCB, while 262 patients were treated with DES. Target lesion failure (TLF) was evaluated during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

The proportion of PCIs for ACS was significantly lower in the DCB group (DCB, n=23, 30.7% vs. DES, n=143, 54.6%; p=0.001). The median device diameter and length in the DES group were larger than those in the DCB group (DCB, 2.60 mm vs. DES, 2.98 mm; p<0.001; DCB, 19.1 mm vs. DES, 25.2 mm; p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the DCB and DES groups in lesion calcification. The proportion of ostial lesions was significantly higher in the DCB group (DCB, n=13, 17.3% vs. DES, n=21, 8.0%; p=0.018). The cumulative rate of TLF (DCB, n=5, 6.7% vs. DES, n=18, 6.9%; p=0.951) did not significantly differ between the DCB and DES groups.

CONCLUSION

DCB may be as effective a strategy as DES in the patient who underwent initial PCI for a de novo lesion.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon for de novo lesions of large coronary arteries: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is a novel approach to avoiding stent-related complications and has proven effective for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and small vessels. However, its role in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels is less settled.

Aims

To estimate the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon versus stent in the treatment of de novo lesions in large coronary arteries.

Methods

We searched the literature until April 2023. We judged the safety of DCB based on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), cardiac death, all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and bleeding event; and efficacy according to late lumen loss (LLL), minimum lumen diameter (MLD). We conducted subgroup analyses according to stent type and whether urgent PCI was required.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs were included. Overall, LLL (mean difference (MD) = -0.19, 95 % confidence interval (CI): -0.32 to -0.06, P = 0.003) was lower in the DCB group than in the Stent arm. This effect was consistent in subgroup analysis regardless of stent type and disease type. In terms of safety indicators, there were no significant differences between DCB and stent. The subgroup analyses found that safety indicators showed no significant differences between DCB and drug-eluting stent (DES), but TLR was lower in the DCB than in the bare metal stent (BMS). Moreover, in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), safety indicators and LLL showed no significant differences between DCB and DES, but MLD in the DCB was smaller. While in patients with excluded STEMI, MACE and TLR was lower in the DCB compared with the overall stent.

Conclusions

DCB could be a promising alternative for treating de novo lesions in large coronary arteries with satisfactory efficacy and low risk, superior to BMS and not inferior to DES, with a trend toward lower late lumen loss.

Shortened Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Contemporary Clinical Review

Percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation is an integral aspect of minimally interventional cardiac procedures. The technology and techniques behind stent design and implantation have evolved rapidly over several decades. However, continued discourse remains around optimal peri- and post-interventional management with dual antiplatelet therapy to minimise both major cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events and iatrogenic bleeding risk. Standard guidelines around dual antiplatelet therapy historically recommended long-term dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months (with consideration for >12 months in certain patients); however, emerging data and generational improvements in the safety of drug-eluting stents have ushered in a new era of short-term therapy to reduce the incidence of major bleeding events. This case review will provide an overview of the current state of guidelines around duration of dual antiplatelet therapy and examine recent updates and continued gaps in existing research.

Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established strategy for coronary artery disease. However, the new generation drug-eluting stent (DES) is recommended for patients with Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for coronary artery revascularization. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy of DCBs in patients with AMI undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We searched the WOS, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL till March 2023, for studies that compared DCBs versus DES in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. We used a random-effects model to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, Late lumen Loss (LLL), and minimum lumen diameter (MLD) between the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comprising 2644 patients were included. The pooled OR showed non-inferiority of DCB over DES in terms of MACE (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.57 to 1.40], p = 0.63). When we defined MACE as a composite of cardiac death, MI, and TLR; the pooled OR favored DCB over DES (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.28 to 0.9], p = 0.02). Moreover, DCB was not inferior to DES in terms of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.8, p = 0.73), cardiac mortality, (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.56, p = 0.29), MI (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.34 to 2.29, p = 0.79), stent thrombosis (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.35 to 4.23, p = 0.76), TLR (OR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.93, p = 0.8), LLL (MD = -0.6, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.19, p = 0.64), or MLD (MD = -0.4, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.25, p = 0.76).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicated that DCB intervention was not inferior to DES in the PCI setting in patients with AMI, and can be recommended as a feasible strategy in AMI.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023412757.

Sirolimus-coated balloon in acute and chronic coronary syndromes: subanalysis of the EASTBOURNE registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The PEACE study (Performance of a sirolimus-eluting balloon strategy in acute and chronic coronary syndromes) investigated for the first time whether a sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) (Magic Touch, Concept Medical, India) is associated with different outcomes depending on whether it is used in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS).

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis from the all-comers EASTBOURNE Registry (NCT03085823). Out of 2083 patients enrolled, an SCB was used to treat 968 (46.5%) ACS and 1115 (53.5%) CCS patients. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization at 12 months, while secondary endpoints were angiographic success and major adverse cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics, mean reference vessel diameter and mean lesion length were comparable between ACS and CCS. Predilatation was more commonly performed in ACS (P=.007). SCB was inflated at a standard pressure in both groups with a slight trend toward longer inflation time in ACS. Angiographic success was high in both groups (ACS 97.4% vs CCS 97.7%, P=.820) with limited bailout stenting. Similarly, at 12 months the cumulative incidence of target lesion revascularization (ACS 6.6% vs CCS 5.2%, P=.258) was comparable between ACS and CCS. Conversely, a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events in acute presenters was mainly driven by myocardial infarction recurrencies (ACS 10.4% vs CCS 8.3%, P=.009). In-stent restenosis showed a higher proportion of target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events than de novo lesions, independently of the type of presentation at the index procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

This SCB shows good performance in terms of acute and 1-year outcomes independently of the clinical presentation.

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.

Efficacy and risks of drug-coated balloon treatment for coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

Introduction

Coronary artery disease (CAD) often leads to myocardial ischemia and impaired cardiac function, significantly impacting the well-being and quality of life (QOL) of individuals. The use of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment has become a widespread approach in CAD management. However, currently, there is limited evidence available for the meta-analysis of DCB treatment in CAD.

Materials and methods

A systematic search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and VIP Database, covering data from the inception of each database up to April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding DCB treatment were meticulously chosen based on independent assessment of eligibility and scope by three researchers. Literature screening and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers, while methodological quality of the enrolled studies was assessed using the risk of bias (ROB) tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.

Results

Following the screening process, seven studies were included. Four studies demonstrated an odds ratio (OR) of 0.66 for target lesion revascularization (TLR), five reported an OR of 0.41 for postoperative myocardial infarction (MI), four indicated a mean difference (MD) of 6.03 in the degree of stenosis (DOS), five exhibited an MD of 0.13 for late lumen loss (LLL), five reported an OR of 0.33 for cardiac death, and two presented an OR of 1.01 for binary restenosis (BR).

Conclusion

DCB demonstrated a comparable efficacy to drug-eluting stents (DES) in treating CAD, with relatively lower associated risks.

Clinical impact of optical coherence tomography findings after drug-coated balloon treatment for patients with acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) became a potential treatment option for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS); however, factors associated with target lesion failure (TLF) remain uncertain.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicentre, observational study included consecutive ACS patients who underwent optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided DCB treatment. Patients were divided into two groups according to the occurrence of TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularisation.

RESULTS

We enrolled 127 patients in this study. During the median follow-up period of 562 (IQR: 342-1164) days, 24 patients (18.9%) experienced TLF, and 103 patients (81.1%) did not. The cumulative 3-year incidence of TLF was 22.0%. The cumulative 3-year incidence of TLF was the lowest in patients with plaque erosion (PE) (7.5%), followed by those with rupture (PR) (26.1%) and calcified nodule (CN) (43.5%). Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that plaque morphology was independently associated with TLF on pre-PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) OCT, and residual thrombus burden (TB) was positively associated with TLF on post-PCI OCT. Further stratification by post-PCI TB revealed a comparable incidence of TLF in patients with PR (4.2%) to that of PE if the culprit lesion had a smaller post-PCI TB than the cut-off value (8.4%). TLF incidence was high in patients with CN, regardless of TB size on post-PCI OCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Plaque morphology was strongly associated with TLF for ACS patients after DCB treatment. Residual TB post-PCI might be a key determinant for TLF, especially in patients with PR.

Comparisons of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent for the treatment of cancer patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Treatment for cancer patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains challenging. The objective of the study was to investigate the safety and efficiency of drug eluting balloon (DEB) versus drug eluting stent (DES) in this high-risk group.

METHODS

Between 1st January 2017 and 1st January 2022, cancer patients admitted to Beijing Chaoyang Hospital with AMI were retrospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). The secondary endpoints included major bleeding events, heart failure and cardiac complications.

RESULTS

A total of 164 cancer patients presenting with AMI were included in the final analysis. Patients treated with DEB had a numerically lower rate of MACE than those treated with DES during a median follow-up of 21.8 months (22.9% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.23). Patients treated with DEB had a trend towards lower rate of major bleeding events than patients treated with DES (6.3% vs. 18.1%, HR 2.96, 95% CI [0.88, 9.92], p = 0.08). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to the rate of heart failure (4.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.32) and cardiac complications (0.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that in cancer patients with AMI, DEB had a trend towards lower rate of major bleeding events and a numerically lower rate of MACE compared with DES.

Prospective, single-centre evaluation of the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions following a decision tree proposing a no-stent strategy in stable patients with coronary artery disease (SCRAP study)

AIM

We evaluated a decision algorithm for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) based on a no-stent strategy, corresponding to a combination of scoring balloon angioplasty (SCBA) and drug-coated balloon (DCB), as a first line approach. Stents were used only in unstable patients, or in case of mandatory bailout stenting (BO-stent).

METHODS

From April 2019 to March 2020, 984 consecutive patients, including 1922 lesions, underwent PCI. The 12-month primary end-point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and target lesion revascularization. Patients were classified into conventional or no-stent strategy groups according to the PCI strategy. In the no-stent strategy group, they were further classified into BO-stent or DCB-only groups. Their metal index was calculated by stent length divided by the total lesion length.

RESULTS

The no-stent strategy was applied in 85% of the patients, and it was successful for 65% of them. MACE occurred in 7.1% of the study population, including 4.2% of all-cause death. Target lesion revascularization was required in 1.4%, 3.6%, and 1.5% of patients in the conventional DES, BO-stent, and DCB-only groups, respectively. MACE occurred more often in the elderly and in those treated with at least one stent (metal index greater than 0).

CONCLUSIONS

The no-stent strategy, i.e., revascularization of coronary lesions by SCBA followed by DCB and with DES bailout stenting, was effective and safe at 1 year. This PCI approach was applicable on a daily practice in our cath lab.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03893396, first posted on March 28, 2019). Feasibility, safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions following a decision tree proposing a no-stent strategy in stable patients with coronary artery disease. DES: drug eluting stent; SCBA: scoring balloon angioplasty; BO-stent: at least one stent; DCB: drug coated balloon; BMS: bare metal stent; Bailout (dash lines); MACE: major adverse cardiac event.

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.

Bleeding in acute coronary syndrome: from definitions, incidence, and prognosis to prevention and management

INTRODUCTION

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the ischemic benefit of antithrombotic treatment is counterbalanced by the risk of bleeding. The recognition that bleeding events have prognostic implications (i.e. mortality) similar to recurrent ischemic events led to the development of treatment regimens aimed at balancing both ischemic and bleeding risks.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims at describing definitions, incidence, and prognosis related to bleeding events in ACS patients as well as bleeding-avoidance strategies for their prevention and management of bleeding complications.

EXPERT OPINION

Management of ACS patients has witnessed remarkable progress after the shift in focusing on the trade-off between ischemia and bleeding. Efforts in standardizing bleeding definitions will allow for better defining the prognostic impact of different types of bleeding events and enable to identify the high-bleeding risk patient. Such efforts will allow to balance the trade-off between the thrombotic and bleeding risk of the individual patient translating into better downward diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making. Novel strategies aiming at maximizing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens as well as the development of novel antithrombotic drugs and reversal agents and technological advances will allow for optimization of bleeding-avoidance strategies and management of bleeding complications.

Drug Coated Balloon in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Narrative Review

Drug coated balloons (DCBs) are currently indicated in guidelines as a first choice option in the management of instant restenosis, whereas their use in de novo lesions is still debated. The concerns raised after the contrasting results of the initial trials with DCBs in de novo lesions have been more recently overcome by a larger amount of data confirming their safety and effectiveness as compared to drug-eluting stents (DES), with potentially greater benefits being achieved, especially in particular anatomical settings, as in very small or large vessels and bifurcations, but also in selected subsets of higher-risk patients, where a 'leave nothing behind' strategy could offer a reduction of the inflammatory stimulus and thrombotic risk. The present review aims at providing an overview of current available DCB devices and their indications of use based on the results of data achieved so far.

Clinical expert consensus document on drug-coated balloon for coronary artery disease from the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics

Drug-coated balloon (DCB) technology was developed to deliver the antiproliferative drugs to the vessel wall without leaving any permanent prosthesis or durable polymers. The absence of foreign material can reduce the risk of very late stent failure, improve the ability to perform bypass-graft surgery, and reduce the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy, potentially reducing associated bleeding complications. The DCB technology, like the bioresorbable scaffolds, is expected to be a therapeutic approach that facilitates the "leave nothing behind" strategy. Although newer generation drug-eluting stents are the most common therapeutic strategy in modern percutaneous coronary interventions, the use of DCB is steadily increasing in Japan. Currently, the DCB is only indicated for treatment of in-stent restenosis or small vessel lesions (< 3.0 mm), but potential expansion for larger vessels (≥ 3.0 mm) may hasten its use in a wider range of lesions or patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. The task force of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) was convened to describe the expert consensus on DCBs. This document aims to summarize its concept, current clinical evidence, possible indications, technical considerations, and future perspectives.

Comparing a strategy of sirolimus-eluting balloon treatment to drug-eluting stent implantation in de novo coronary lesions in all-comers: Design and rationale of the SELUTION DeNovo Trial

BACKGROUND

Drug eluting stents (DES) are associated with a 2% to 4% annual rate of target lesion failure through 5-to-10-year follow-up. The presence of a metallic protheses is a trigger for neo-atherosclerosis and very late stent thrombosis. A "leave nothing behind" strategy using Drug Coated Balloons has been suggested; however, paclitaxel coated balloons are only recommended in selected indications. Recently a novel sirolimus eluting balloon, the SELUTION SLR ^TM 014 PTCA balloon (SEB) (M.A. MedAlliance SA, Nyon, Switzerland) has been developed.

HYPOTHESIS

A strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SEB and provisional DES is non-inferior to a strategy of systematic DES on target vessel failure (TVF) at one and five years. If non-inferiority is met at 5 years, superiority will be tested.

DESIGN

SELUTION DeNovo is a multi-center international open-label randomized trial. Subjects meeting eligibility criteria are randomized 1:1 to treatment of all lesions with either SEB and provisional DES or systematic DES. Major inclusion criteria are PCI indicated for ≥1 lesion considered suitable for treatment by either SEB or DES and clinical presentation with chronic coronary syndrome, unstable angina or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). There is no limitation in the number of lesions to be treated. Target lesions diameters are between 2 and 5 mm. Major exclusion criteria are lesions in the left main artery, chronic total occlusions, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and unstable non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Three thousand three hundred twenty six patients will be included in 50 sites in Europe and Asia. TVF rates and their components will be determined at 30 days, 6 months and annually up to 5 years post-intervention. Among secondary endpoints, bleeding events, cost-effectiveness data and net clinical benefits will be assessed.

SUMMARY

SELUTION DeNovo trial is an open-label, multi-center international randomized trial comparing a strategy of PCI with SEB and provisional DES to a strategy of PCI with systematic DES on TVF at one and five years. Non-inferiority will be tested at one and five years. If non-inferiority is met at five years, superiority will be tested.

Comparisons of Drug-Eluting Balloon versus Drug-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of Young Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

The incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the younger population has been increasing gradually in recent years. The objective of the present study is to investigate the safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) in young patients with AMI.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with AMI aged ≤ 45 years were retrospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary study endpoints included heart failure and major bleeding events.

RESULTS

A total of 276 young patients presenting with AMI were finally included. The median follow-up period was 1155 days. Patients treated with DEBs had a trend toward a lower incidence of DOCEs (3.0% vs. 11.0%, p = 0.12) mainly driven by the need for TLR (3.0% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.19) than those treated with DESs. No significant differences between the two groups were detected in the occurrence of cardiac death (0.0% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.69), MI (0.0% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.40), heart failure (0.0% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.39), or major bleeding events (1.5% vs 4.8%, p = 0.30). Multivariate regression analysis showed that DEBs were associated with a trend toward a lower risk of DOCEs (HR 0.13, 95% CI [0.02, 1.05], p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present study suggested that DEBs might be a potential treatment option in young patients with AMI. A larger scale, randomized, multicenter study is required to investigate the safety and effectiveness of DEBs in this setting.

The Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon for Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention using a drug-eluting stent (DES) is a common therapeutic option for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, stent-associated complications, such as bleeding associated with dual antiplatelet therapy, in-stent restenosis, stent thrombosis, and neoatherosclerosis, remain. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are expected to reduce stent-associated complications. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of DCB therapy and compare it with that of DES therapy in patients with ACS.

Materials and Methods

In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, we examined all patients with ACS treated with DCB or DES between July 2014 and November 2020. Patients with left main trunk lesions were excluded. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) at one year.

Results

Three hundred and seventy-two patients were treated with DES, and 83 patients were treated with DCB. MACE occurred in 10 (12.0%) patients in the DCB group and in 50 (13.4%) patients in the DES group (P=0.73).

Conclusions

DCB is a valuable and effective therapy for patients with ACS. Moreover, DCB may become an alternative therapy for DES in patients with ACS.

Drug-Coated Balloons for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Metaanalysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

The role of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is not well established.

Methods

Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared DCB with stents in the treatment of AMI from their inception to 30 July 2021. The primary clinical endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Summary estimations were conducted using fixed-effects analysis complemented by several subgroups. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/CRD42021272886).

Results

A total of 4 randomized controlled trials with 485 patients were included. On routine clinical follow-up, DCB was associated with no difference in the incidence of MACEs compared with control (risk ratio [RR] 0.59 [0.31 to 1.13]; P=0.11). DCB was associated with similar MACEs compared with drug-eluting stent and lower MACEs compared with bare-metal stent. There was no difference between DCB and control in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and minimal lumen diameter during follow-up. However, DCB was associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 0.16 [0.03 to 0.90]; P=0.04) and lower late lumen loss (mean difference -0.20 [-0.27 to -0.13]; P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

In treatment of patients with AMI, DCB might be a feasible interventional strategy versus control as it associated with comparable clinical outcomes. Future large-volume, well-designed randomized controlled trials to evaluating the role of the DCB in this setting are warranted.

Technical success, clinical efficacy, and insight into the causes of restenosis after the percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo coronary artery lesions using a paclitaxel-coated balloon with citrate ester excipient

Objectives

The aim of this all-comers registry study was to investigate the technical success, clinical efficacy, and safety of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) with paclitaxel combined with citrate ester excipient (CEE) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of de novo coronary lesions in an all-comers population.

Materials and methods

A total of 338 consecutive PCIs using the DCB (CEE)-only approach comprising 406 de novo lesions were included in the study. Technical success was determined by the successful delivery of the device and no need for bailout stenting.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 25 ± 12 months. The mean age of patients was 71 ± 11 years, and 48% had the acute coronary syndrome. A total of 55% of the patients were at risk of factor bleeding. The delivery of DCB was successful in 98% of cases. The overall technical success rate was 83%. Bailout stenting was used in 9% of lesions. Rotational atherectomy was used in 11% of cases before the DCB-only approach. The mean diameter of the DCBs used was 2.7 ± 0.5 mm and 38% of DCBs were large (≥3.0 mm). The 12-month MACE rates were 5.4 ± 1.7 and 18.3 ± 3.1% in stable CAD and in ACS, respectively. The respective target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates were 3.0 ± 1.3 and 8.5 ± 2.3%. Unacceptable acute recoil (>30%) was found in 74% of cases that needed repeat revascularization. No acute vessel closures occurred after DCB treatment.

Conclusion

The DCB-only strategy using a paclitaxel-coated (CEE) device was technically feasible, safe, and effective in an all-comers population. Acute recoil was found as a significant cause of restenosis after the DCB-only strategy.

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.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Strategy in de novo Lesions of Large Coronary Arteries

Background and Objectives

Use of drug-coated balloon (DCB)-only strategy for revascularization of native large coronary artery lesions is on the rise. The long-term efficacy of this approach for bifurcation and non-bifurcation lesions remains unknown. We aim to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of DCB-only strategy for the treatment of de novo bifurcation and non-bifurcation lesions in large coronary arteries.

Methods

This multicenter, prospective, observational study enrolled 119 patients with de novo coronary lesions in vessels ≥2.75 mm. The primary end point was the rate of clinically driven target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Patients were followed up for a median of 2 years.

Results

Of 119 patients with 138 lesions, 66 patients (75 lesions) had bifurcation and 53 patients (63 lesions) had non-bifurcation lesions. Average reference vessel diameter was 3.1 ± 0.3 mm, and there was no difference in bifurcation and non-bifurcation group (3.0 ± 0.3 vs. 3.1 ± 0.3mm; p = 0.27). At 2-year follow-up, the TLF occurred in five (4.2%), TLR in four (3.4%), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) in five (4.2%) cases. The frequency of TLR and TVR was higher in the non-bifurcation group (p = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively), but there were no differences in TLF between the two groups (p = 0.17). The cumulative incidence of TLF (Kaplan–Meier estimates) was also not different in the two groups (log-rank p = 0.11).

Conclusion

DCB-only strategy for de novo lesions in large coronary arteries appears to be safe and effective for both bifurcation and non-bifurcation lesions. Further randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm the value of DCB-only strategy in de novo bifurcation lesions of large vessels.

Coronary vasomotion after treatment with drug-coated balloons or drug-eluting stents: a prospective, open-label, single-centre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Although recent studies have reported that drug-coated balloons (DCB) are non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of native coronary arteries in a specific population, there is no available information concerning vasomotion after treatment with DCB.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to prospectively compare coronary vasomotion in patients with small coronary artery disease treated with DCB versus DES.

METHODS

Forty-two native lesions (2.0-3.0 mm) treated in our institution were randomly assigned to the DCB arm (n=19) or the bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stents arm (n=23) after successful predilation. At eight months after treatment, endothelium-dependent and -independent vasomotion was evaluated with intracoronary infusions in incremental doses of acetylcholine (right coronary artery: low dose 5 μg, high dose 50 μg; left coronary artery: low dose 10 μg, high dose 100 μg) and nitroglycerine (200 μg). The mean lumen diameter of the distal segment, beginning 5 mm and ending 15 mm distal to the edge of the treated segment, was quantitatively measured by angiography.

RESULTS

The luminal dimension in the treated segment did not differ between groups at the follow-up angiography. The vasoconstriction after acetylcholine infusion was less pronounced in the DCB arm than in the DES arm (low-dose: 6±13% vs -3±18%, p=0.060; high-dose: -4±17% vs -21±29%, p=0.035). The response to nitroglycerine did not differ between groups (17±13% vs 17±22%, p=0.929).

CONCLUSIONS

Vasoconstriction after acetylcholine infusion in the peri-treated region was less pronounced in the DCB arm than in the DES arm, suggesting that endothelial function in treated coronary vessels could be better preserved by DCB than by new-generation DES.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one of the main causes of death in the world, and the incidence of AMI is increasing in the young population. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has become an effective concept for the treatment of in-stent restenosis, small vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, high blood risk conditions, and even de novo large vessel disease. To ensure whether DCB can play an alternative role in AMI, we conducted a comprehensive meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB in the treatment of AMI. Electronic databases were searched for RCTs that compared DCB with stent for AMI. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), the secondary outcome was late lumen loss (LLL). RevMan 5.3 software and RStudio software were used for data analysis. Five RCTs involving 528 patients with 6–12 months of follow-up were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACEs between DCB group and stent group (RR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.74; P = 0.66). Lower LLL was shown in DCB group (WMD, − 0.29; 95% CI − 0.46 to − 0.12; P < 0.001). This meta-analysis of RCT showed that DCB might provide a promising way on AMI compared with stents. Rigorous patients’ selection and adequate predilation of culprit lesions are necessary to optimize results and prevent bailout stent implantation.

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020214333.

Treatment of Coronary De Novo Lesions by a Sirolimus- or Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate a novel sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) compared with the best investigated paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB).

BACKGROUND

There is increasing clinical evidence for the treatment of coronary de novo disease using drug-coated balloons. However, it is unclear whether paclitaxel remains the drug of choice or if sirolimus is an alternative, in analogy to drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

Seventy patients with coronary de novo lesions were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, B. Braun Melsungen; 4 μg/mm²) with a PCB (SeQuent Please, B. Braun Melsungen; 3 μg/mm²). The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiovascular events and individual clinical endpoints such as cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.

RESULTS

Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment LLL was 0.01 ± 0.33 mm in the PCB group versus 0.10 ± 0.32 mm in the SCB group. The mean difference between SCB and PCB was 0.08 (95% CI: -0.07 to 0.24). Noninferiority at a predefined margin of 0.35 was shown. However, negative LLL was more frequent in the PCB group (60% of lesions vs 32% in the SCB group; P = 0.019). Major adverse cardiovascular events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This first-in-human comparison of a novel SCB with a crystalline coating showed similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary de novo disease compared with a clinically proven PCB. However, late luminal enlargement was more frequently observed after PCB treatment. (Treatment of Coronary De-Novo Stenosis by a Sirolimus Coated Balloon or a Paclitaxel Coated Balloon Catheter Malaysia [SCBDNMAL]; NCT04017364).

Safety and Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Prespecified Analysis of BASKET-SMALL 2

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established treatment strategy for coronary artery disease. Randomized data on the application of DCBs in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are limited. We evaluated the impact of clinical presentation (ACS versus chronic coronary syndrome) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing DCB or drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment in a prespecified analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial (Basel Kosten Effektivitäts Trial-Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Interventions).

METHODS

BASKET-SMALL 2 randomized 758 patients with small vessel coronary artery disease to DCB or DES treatment and followed them for 3 years regarding major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization).

RESULTS

Among 758 patients, 214 patients (28.2%) presented with an ACS (15 patients [7%], ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction; 109 patients [50.9%], non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction; 90 patients [42.1%], unstable angina pectoris). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the incidence of the primary end point by randomized treatment in patients with ACS (hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.19-1.26] for DCB versus DES) or chronic coronary syndrome (hazard ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.67-2.47] for DCB versus DES). There was no significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment effect (P for interaction, 0.088). For cardiac death (P for interaction, 0.049) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (P for interaction, 0.010), a significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment was seen at 1 year with lower rates of these secondary end points in patients with ACS treated by DCB. At 3 years, there were similar major adverse cardiac event rates throughout groups without significant interaction between clinical presentation and treatment (P for interaction, 0.301). All-cause mortality was higher in ACS compared with chronic coronary syndrome; however, there was no difference between DCB and DES irrespective of clinical presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this subgroup analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial, there was no interaction between indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (acute versus chronic coronary syndrome) and treatment effect of DCB versus DES in patients with small vessel coronary artery disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01574534.

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Implantation of Drug-Coated Balloon

The drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an emerging percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) device with theoretical advantages and promising results. Recent clinical observations have demonstrated that DCB tends to have both good efficacy and a good safety profile in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) for both bare-metal and drug-eluting stents (DES), de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), and other situation, such as high bleeding risk, chronic total occlusion, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become an essential medication in daily clinical practice, but the optimal duration of DAPT after the implantation of a DCB remains unknown. At the time of the first in vivo implantation of paclitaxel-DCB for the treatment of ISR in 2006, the protocol-defined DAPT duration was only 1 month. Subsequently, DAPT duration ranging from 1 to 12 months has been recommended by various trials. However, there have been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the optimal duration of DAPT after DCB angioplasty. Current clinical guidelines normally recommend the duration of DAPT after DCB-only angioplasty based on data from RCTs on the optimal duration of DAPT after stenting. In this review, we summarized current clinical trials on DCB-only angioplasty for different types of CADs and their stipulated durations of DAPT, and compared their clinical results such as restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis event. We hope this review can assist clinicians in making reasonable decisions about the duration of DAPT after DCB implantation.

Benefits with drug-coated balloon as compared to a conventional revascularization strategy for the treatment of coronary and non-coronary arterial disease: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 45 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have shown promising results for the percutaneous treatment of de novo and restenotic lesions, involving both the coronary and femoropopliteal district. However, clinical outcomes data associated with the use of this devices are still unclear, with potential warnings on increased mortality being raised from initial studies. We aimed at performing an updated and comprehensive meta-analysis comparing DCB with conventional percutaneous revascularization strategies for the treatment of coronary (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD).

METHODS

Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for studies comparing DCB vs a standard percutaneous revascularization strategy, with or without stenting, for the treatment of CAD and PAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality. Secondary endpoints were recurrent acute ischemic events (myocardial infarction or amputation) or target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

We included 45 randomized trials, (CAD: 27 studies, PAD: 18 studies) with an overall population of 7718 patients, (56.4%) randomized to a DCB strategy. At a mean follow-up of19.3 ± 15.2 months, death occurred in 5.8% of the patients, with no significant difference between DCB or conventionally treated patients (5.9% vs 5.7%, OR[95%CI] = 0.89[0.71,1.11], p = 0.31; phet = 0.43). We observed a non-significant reduction in recurrent acute ischemic events, whereas the use of DCB significantly reduced the rate of TLR, with larger benefits observed in patients with PAD and respect to balloon-only angioplasty, while being lower in comparison with stent implantation. No significant interaction was observed with de novo lesions or in-stent restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, the use of drug-coated balloons for the percutaneous treatment of CAD and PAD is associated to a comparable risk of mortality and recurrent acute ischemic events as compared to a conventional revascularization strategy, although offering larger benefits in terms of TLR, especially when compared with balloon-only angioplasty and in femoropopliteal disease.

Drug-coated balloons in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (Review)

Drug-eluting stents are the standard revascularization strategy for the treatment of symptomatic coronary artery disease. However, in-stent restenosis (ISR), stent thrombosis and reinfarction of target lesions following stent implantation present challenges. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs), which deliver antiproliferative drugs into the vessel wall without stent implantation, are a novel treatment option for percutaneous coronary intervention and have been proven to act as a promising strategy in the treatment of ISR and coronary small vessel disease. However, their role in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. The present review discusses current evidence for the treatment of AMI with DCBs.

Serial assessment of de novo coronary lesions after drug-coated balloon treatment analyzed by intravascular ultrasound: A comparison between acute coronary syndrome and stable angina pectoris

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the serial changes in de novo coronary lesions, including acute coronary syndrome (ACS), treated with a drug-coated balloon (DCB).

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center study, the intravascular changes in patients with de novo lesions treated with DCB were evaluated with serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) pre-procedure, post-procedure, and at follow-up. A two-dimensional IVUS measurement was performed with slices at 1 mm intervals in the treated lesion.

RESULTS

This study comprised 40 lesions, including 27 lesions with stable angina pectoris (SAP) and 13 ACS. IVUS showed that the median vessel and lumen area increased significantly from pre-procedure to post-procedure and from post-procedure to follow-up. The median plaque area decreased significantly from pre-procedure to post-procedure and follow-up. The IVUS between ACS and SAP demonstrated that the total vessel volume and the total lumen volume increased, and the total atheroma volume decreased significantly from pre- to follow-up in both groups. The percent change in the lumen area increased, and the plaque area decreased significantly in ACS compared to SAP from pre- to post-procedure and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that DCB treatment for de novo coronary lesions in patients with ACS and SAP may maintain anatomical patency and increase lumen with positive vessel remodeling and regression of plaque.

Long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): 3-year follow-up of a randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DESs) regarding clinical outcome up to 12 months, but data beyond 1 year is sparse. We aimed to test the long-term efficacy and safety of DCBs regarding clinical endpoints in an all-comer population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

In this prespecified long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients from 14 clinical sites in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria with de-novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned 1:1 to DCB or second-generation DES and followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events (ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation [TVR]), all-cause death, probable or definite stent thrombosis, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding type 3-5). Analyses were performed on the full analysis set according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for 1 month after DCB and 6 months after DES with stable symptoms, but 12 months with acute coronary syndromes. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01574534 and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between April 10, 2012, and Feb 1, 2017, of 883 patients assessed, 758 (86%) patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group (n=382) or the DES group (n=376). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 15% in both the DCB and DES groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·68-1·45; p=0·95). The two groups were also very similar concerning the single components of adverse cardiac events: cardiac death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 5% vs 4%, HR 1·29, 95% CI 0·63-2·66; p=0·49), non-fatal myocardial infarction (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 6%, HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·45-1·51; p=0·52), and TVR (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 9%, HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·58-1·56; p=0·83). Rates of all-cause death were very similar in DCB versus DES patients (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 8%, HR 1·05, 95% CI 0·62-1·77; p=0·87). Rates of probable or definite stent thrombosis (Kaplan-Meier estimate 1% vs 2%; HR 0·33, 95% CI 0·07-1·64; p=0·18) and major bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2% vs 4%, HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·17-1·13; p=0·088) were numerically lower in DCB versus DES, however without reaching significance.

INTERPRETATION

There is maintained efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease up to 3 years.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical.

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.

Drug-Coated Balloon for De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: A Systematic Review and Trial Sequential Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment for de novo coronary artery lesions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Background

DCB was an effective therapy for patients with in-stent restenosis. However, the efficacy of DCB in patients with de novo coronary artery lesions is still unknown.

Methods

Eligible studies were searched on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database. Systematic review and meta-analyses of RCTs were performed comparing DCB with non-DCB devices (such as plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), bare-metal stents (BMS), or drug-eluting stents (DES)) for the treatment of de novo lesions. Trial sequential meta-analysis (TSA) was performed to assess the false positive and false negative errors.

Results

A total of 2,137 patients enrolled in 12 RCTs were analyzed. Overall, no significant difference in target lesion revascularization (TLR) was found, but there were numerically lower rates after DCB treatment at 6 to 12 months follow-up (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.01; P = 0.06; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.41 to 1.16). TSA showed that at least 1,000 more randomized patients are needed to conclude the effect on TLR. A subgroup analysis from high bleeding risk patients revealed that DCB treatment was associated with lower rate of TLR (RR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.78; P = 0.03). The systematic review illustrated that the rate of bailout stenting was lower and decreased gradually.

Conclusions

DCB treatment was associated with a trend toward lower TLR when compared with controls. For patients at bleeding risk, DCB treatment was superior to BMS in TLR.

Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes With Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

The role of drug‐coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions is not well established.

Methods and Results

Electronic databases and major conference proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared DCBs with stents or angioplasty for de novo coronary lesions. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization. Summary estimates were conducted using random‐effects analysis complemented by several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 2483 patients were included. At a mean follow up of 12 months, DCBs were associated with no difference in the incidence of target lesion revascularization as compared with alternative strategies (risk ratio [RR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.35–1.76). There was no difference in treatment effect based on the indication (ie, small‐vessel disease, myocardial infarction, bifurcation, or high bleeding risk) (P_interaction=0.22). DCBs were associated with lower target lesion revascularization compared with bare metal stents and similar target lesion revascularization compared with drug‐eluting stents (P_interaction=0.03). There was no difference between DCBs and control in terms of major adverse cardiac events, vessel thrombosis, or cardiovascular mortality. However, DCBs were associated with a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25–0.90) and all‐cause mortality (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22–0.94).

Conclusions

In patients with de novo coronary lesions, use of DCBs was associated with comparable clinical outcomes irrespective of the indication or comparator device. DCBs had a similar rate of target lesion revascularization compared with drug‐eluting stents. A randomized trial powered for clinical outcomes and evaluating the role of DCBs for all‐comers is warranted.