Efficacy and Safety of Sirolimus-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in De Novo Lesions in Large Coronary Vessels: A Propensity Score-Matched Study
- PMID: 39778031
- DOI: 10.1002/ccd.31402
Efficacy and Safety of Sirolimus-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in De Novo Lesions in Large Coronary Vessels: A Propensity Score-Matched Study
Abstract
Background: Evidence regarding drug-coated balloon (DCB)-only angioplasty in de novo lesions of large vessels is still limited and mainly focused on paclitaxel-coated balloon. We aimed to analyze the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB)-only angioplasty in de novo lesions in large vessels compared to drug-eluting stent (DES).
Methods: In this retrospective, dual-center, case-control study, we enrolled all consecutive patients treated between January 2022 and January 2024 with SCB-only angioplasty in de novo lesion in large vessel (> 2.75 mm) compared to a propensity-score matched contemporary population treated with DES. The primary endpoint was the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR), while secondary endpoints were cardiac death (CD), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of them.
Results: The mean age was 70.1 ± 9.8 years in the SCB group (n = 92) and 67.9 ± 9.6 years in the DES group (n = 92) (p = 0.76). The median follow-up was 19.5 ± 12 months in the SCB group and 20.1 ± 13.1 months in the DES group (p = 0.47). TLR occurred in 6.7% of patients in the SCB group and 5.6% in the DES group (p = 0.75). The incidence of MI, TVR, and TLF were similar between the two groups (4.3% vs 3.3%, p = 0.7, 2.2% vs 3.4%, p = 0.65% and 9.8% vs 8.7%, p = 0.79). CD occurred in 4.3% in the SCB group, compared to 3.3% in the DES group (p = 0.70).
Conclusion: Our study suggests that SCB angioplasty is both safe and effective in the treatment of de novo lesions of large vessels compared with DES.
Keywords: drug‐coated balloon; sirolimus‐coated balloon; target lesion revascularization.
© 2025 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
-
- M. V. Madhavan, A. J. Kirtane, B. Redfors, et al., “Stent‐Related Adverse Events >1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 75, no. 6 (2020): 590–604, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.058.
-
- F. Pelliccia, M. Zimarino, G. Niccoli, et al., “In‐Stent Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Emerging Knowledge on Biological Pathways,” European Heart Journal Open 3, no. 5 (2023): oead083, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oead083.
-
- B. Cortese, G. Di Palma, M. G. Guimaraes, et al., “Drug‐Coated Balloon Versus Drug‐Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessel Disease: PICCOLETO II Randomized Clinical Trial,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 13, no. 24 (2020): 2840–2849, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.035.
-
- D. Wang, X. Wang, T. Yang, H. Tian, Y. Su, and Q. Wang, “Drug‐Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials,” Yonsei Medical Journal 64, no. 10 (2023): 593, https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.0606.
-
- T. Naganuma, A. Latib, G. A. Sgueglia, et al., “A 2‐Year Follow‐Up of a Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing a Paclitaxel Drug‐Eluting Balloon With a Paclitaxel‐Eluting Stent in Small Coronary Vessels the BELLO Study,” International Journal of Cardiology 184, no. 1 (2015): 17–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.01.080.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
