Final 5-year report of BIONYX comparing the thin-composite wire-strut zotarolimus-eluting stent versus ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent.

BACKGROUND: The BIONYX randomized trial is the first study to evaluate the Resolute Onyx durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in all-comers. Furthermore, it is the first trial to assess safety and efficacy of this stent versus the Orsiro biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers, paying particular attention to patients with diabetes. It has previously shown promising results until 3 years of follow-up. AIMS: We aimed to assess long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Onyx ZES versus Orsiro SES at 5-year follow-up. METHODS: The main composite endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF): cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Time to primary and secondary endpoints was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, applying the log-rank test for between-group comparison. RESULTS: Follow-up was available in 2414/2488 (97.0%) patients. After 5 years, TVF showed no significant difference between Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES (12.7% vs. 13.7%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.75-1.17], plog-rank = 0.55). Landmark analysis between 3- and 5-year follow-up found a lower target lesion revascularization rate for Onyx ZES (1.1% vs. 2.4%, HR 0.47, 95% CI [0.24-0.93], plog-rank = 0.026). A prespecified subgroup analysis showed no significant between-stent difference in clinical outcome among patients with diabetes. After treatment with Onyx ZES, patients aged ≥75 years had significantly lower rates of TVF (13.8% vs. 21.9%, HR 0.60, 95% CI [0.39-0.93], plog-rank = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The final 5-year analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial showed favorable and similar long-term outcomes of safety and efficacy for Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES in both all-comers and patients with diabetes.

Comparison of Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloons versus Plain Balloons in Secondary Interventions on Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistulae.

PURPOSE: To compare patency and reintervention outcomes after either plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) or drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) for venous stenoses after percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred ninety-five pAVFs were successfully created during the study period, 141 using Ellipsys and 54 using Wavelinq. After pAVF creation, 95 patients (48.7%) required secondary percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with either POBA (n = 55, 58%) or DCBA (n = 40, 42.1%). The most common site for PTA was the juxta-anastomotic segment (75.5%; 74/98). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare target lesion primary patency, access circuit primary patency, secondary patency, and reintervention rates in the POBA and DCBA cohorts. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 55 (62%) patients in the POBA cohort and 14 of 40 (35%) patients in the DCBA cohort required reinterventions for pAVF restenosis. Mean number of follow-up days among patients treated with POBA was 1,030.4 (SD ± 342.9) and among those treated with DCBA was 744.4 (SD ± 403.5). The use of POBA compared with DCBA was not associated with target lesion and access circuit primary patency loss in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; 95% CI, 0.93-3.51; P = .080; and HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.73-4.28; P = .210, respectively). However, time from fistula creation to the first PTA (days) was statistically significantly associated with both outcomes (HR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.994-0.999; P = .009; and HR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.992-0.999; P = .021, respectively). There were no major adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective single-center analysis of pAVFs, considerably more patients who underwent PTA with POBA after pAVF creation required reinterventions compared with PTA using DCBA, although the follow-up time of POBA was longer. In multivariate analysis, no differences were noted in the hazard of patency loss between POBA and DCBA.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons in chronic total coronary occlusion recanalization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: With advancements in chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) recanalization techniques and concepts, the success rate of recanalization has been steadily increasing. However, the current data are too limited to draw any reliable conclusions about the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to confirm the efficacy of DCB in CTO PCI. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to July 25, 2023. The primary outcome was major advent cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The follow-up angiographic endpoints were late lumen enlargement (LLE), reocclusion and restenosis. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 511 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, patients were predominantly male (72.9-85.7%) and over fifty years old. The summary estimate rate of MACE was 13.0% (95% CI 10.1%-15.9%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.428). The summary estimate rates of cardiac death and MI were 2.2% (95% CI 0.7%-3.7%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.873) and 1.2% (95% CI -0.2-2.6%, I2 = 13.7%, p = 0.314), respectively. Finally, the pooled incidences of TLR and TVR were 10.1% (95% CI 5.7%-14.5%, I2 = 51.7%, p = 0.082) and 7.1% (95% CI 3.0%-11.2%, I2 = 57.6%, p = 0.070), respectively. Finally, the summary estimate rates of LLE, reocclusion and restenosis were 59.4% (95% CI 53.5-65.3%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.742), 3.3% (95% CI 1.1-5.4%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.865) and 17.5% (95% CI 12.9-22.0%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.623), respectively. CONCLUSION: Accordingly, DCB has the potential to be used as a treatment for CTO in suitable patients.

Injectable hydrogel-based combination therapy for myocardial infarction: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of preclinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the effectiveness of a combined regimen involving injectable hydrogels for the treatment of experimental myocardial infarction. PATIENT CONCERNS: Myocardial infarction is an acute illness that negatively affects quality of life and increases mortality rates. Experimental models of myocardial infarction can aid in disease research by allowing for the development of therapies that effectively manage disease progression and promote tissue repair. DIAGNOSIS: Experimental animal models of myocardial infarction were established using the ligation method on the anterior descending branch of the left coronary artery (LAD). INTERVENTIONS: The efficacy of intracardiac injection of hydrogels, combined with cells, drugs, cytokines, extracellular vesicles, or nucleic acid therapies, was evaluated to assess the functional and morphological improvements in the post-infarction heart achieved through the combined hydrogel regimen. OUTCOMES: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. A total of 83 papers, including studies on 1332 experimental animals (rats, mice, rabbits, sheep, and pigs), were included in the meta-analysis based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The overall effect size observed in the group receiving combined hydrogel therapy, compared to the group receiving hydrogel treatment alone, resulted in an ejection fraction (EF) improvement of 8.87% [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.53, 10.21] and a fractional shortening (FS) improvement of 6.31% [95% CI: 5.94, 6.67] in rat models, while in mice models, the improvements were 16.45% [95% CI: 11.29, 21.61] for EF and 5.68% [95% CI: 5.15, 6.22] for FS. The most significant improvements in EF (rats: MD = 9.63% [95% CI: 4.02, 15.23]; mice: MD = 23.93% [95% CI: 17.52, 30.84]) and FS (rats: MD = 8.55% [95% CI: 2.54, 14.56]; mice: MD = 5.68% [95% CI: 5.15, 6.22]) were observed when extracellular vesicle therapy was used. Although there have been significant results in large animal experiments, the number of studies conducted in this area is limited. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that combining hydrogel with other therapies effectively improves heart function and morphology. Further preclinical research using large animal models is necessary for additional study and validation.

Drug-coated balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting versus primary stenting for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions: REC-CAGEFREE I trial rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with primary stenting, which stands for stent implantation regardless of obtaining satisfactory results with balloon angioplasty, has superseded conventional plain old balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting. With drug-coated balloon (DCB), primary DCB angioplasty with provisional stenting has shown non-inferiority to primary stenting for de novo coronary small vessel disease. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of such a strategy to the primary stenting on clinical endpoints in de novo lesions without vessel diameter restrictions remain uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: The REC-CAGEFREE I is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial aimed to enroll 2270 patients with acute or chronic coronary syndrome from 43 interventional cardiology centers in China to evaluate the non-inferiority of primary paclitaxel-coated balloons angioplasty to primary stenting for the treatment of de novo, non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. Patients who fulfill all the inclusion and exclusion criteria and have achieved a successful lesion pre-dilatation will be randomly assigned to the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. Protocol-guided DCB angioplasty and bailout stenting after unsatisfactory angioplasty are mandatory in the primary DCB angioplasty group. The second-generation sirolimus-eluting stent will be used as a bailout stent in the primary DCB angioplasty group and the treatment device in the primary stenting group. The primary endpoint is the incidence of Device-oriented Composite Endpoint (DoCE) within 24 months after randomization, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically and physiologically indicated target lesion revascularization. DISCUSSION: The ongoing REC-CAGEFREE I trial is the first randomized trial with a clinical endpoint to assess the efficacy and safety of primary DCB angioplasty for the treatment of de novo, non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. If non-inferiority is shown, PCI with primary DCB angioplasty could be an alternative treatment option to primary stenting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04561739).

Difference in one-year late lumen loss between high- and low-dose paclitaxel-coated balloons for femoropopliteal disease.

The objective of the study is to investigate the difference in 1-year late lumen loss (LLL) between the high- (IN.PACT Admiral) and low-dose (Lutonix) paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB). Although a recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated no difference in efficacy endpoint between high- and low-dose PCB, it remains unclear whether high-dose PCB was superior to low-dose PCB in actual clinical practice. We enrolled 64 patients with 67 de novo femoropopliteal lesions who underwent PCB angioplasty at Kokura Memorial Hospital from May 2014 to March 2020 and subsequent follow-up angiography after 1 year. The primary endpoint was 1-year LLL, whereas the secondary endpoints were binary restenosis and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) after 1 year. The high- and low-dose PCB groups had 45 and 22 lesions, respectively. Although the low-dose PCB group had higher rates of coronary artery disease, hemodialysis, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia than the high-dose PCB group, the latter had a longer lesion length and more lesions with a TASC classification C or D than the former. The high-dose PCB group had a significantly lower LLL than the low-dose PCB group (0.40 ± 1.05 vs. 1.19 ± 1.03 mm; P = 0.003, respectively). Moreover, the high-dose PCB group had significantly lower rates of binary restenosis at 1 year than the low-dose PCB group (22.2% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.02, respectively). Moreover, negative LLL was only observed in the high-dose PCB group (33.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.005). The high-dose PCB group had a significantly lower LLL than the low-dose PCB group.

Robustness of Longitudinal Safety and Efficacy After Paclitaxel-Based Endovascular Therapy for Treatment of Femoro-Popliteal Artery Occlusive Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were: i) to assess fragility indices (FIs) of individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared paclitaxel-based drug-coated balloons (DCBs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus standard endovascular devices, and ii) to meta-analyze mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy outcomes from available RCT data while also estimating the FI of pooled results. METHODS: This systematic review has been registered in the PROSPERO public database (CRD42022304326 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). A query of PubMed (Medline), EMBASE (Excerpta Medical Database), Scopus, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was performed to identify eligible RCTs. Rates of primary patency (PP) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were assessed as efficacy outcomes, while lower limb amputation (LLA) consisting of major amputation that is. below or above the knee and all-cause mortality were estimated as safety outcomes. All outcomes were pooled with a random effects model to account for any clinical and study design heterogeneity. The analyses were performed by dividing the RCTs according to their maximal follow-up length (mid-term was defined as results up to 2-3 years, while long-term was defined as results up to 4-5 years). For each individual outcome, the FI and reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated according to whether the outcome results were statistically significant or not, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ), which are the FI or RFI divided by the sample size, were also calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,337 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There were 2 RCTs examining DES devices and 14 RCTs evaluating different DCBs. For efficacy outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased the PP rate and reduced the TLR rate at mid-term, with a calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.66 for patency (95% CI, 1.55-1.86; P < 0.001), with a corresponding number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 3 patients (95% CI, 2.9-3.8) and RR of 0.44 for TLR (95% CI, 0.35-0.54; P = 0.027), respectively. Similarly, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy both increased PP and decreased TLR rates at long-term, with calculated pooled RR values of 1.73 (95% CI, 1.12-2.61; P = 0.004) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P = 0.82), respectively. For safety outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased all-cause mortality at mid-term, with a calculated pooled RR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.21-3.24). However, there was no difference between treatment arms in LLA at mid-term (95% CI, 0.1-2.7; P = 0.68). Similarly, neither all-cause mortality nor LLA at long-term differed between treatment arms, with a calculated pooled RR of 0.66, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.31-3.42) and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.30-5.21; P = 0.22), respectively. The pooled estimates of PP at mid-term were robust (FI = 28 and FQ = 1.9%) as were pooled rates of TLR (FI = 18 and FQ = 0.9%). However, when safety outcomes were analyzed, the robustness of the meta-analysis decreased significantly. In fact, the relationship between the use of paclitaxel-coated devices and all-cause mortality at mid-term showed very low robustness (FI = 4 and FQ = 0.2%). At 5 years, only the benefit of paclitaxel-based devices to reduce TLR remained robust, with an FI of 32 and an FQ of 3.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The data supporting clinical efficacy endpoints of RCTs that examined paclitaxel-based devices in the treatment of femoral-popliteal arterial occlusive disease were robust; however, the pooled safety endpoints were highly fragile and prone to bias due to loss of patient follow-up in the original studies. These findings should be considered in the ongoing debate concerning the safety of paclitaxel-based devices.

Outcomes of Excimer Laser Ablation Combined with Drug-coated Balloon in Atherosclerotic Lesions of the Popliteal Artery.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of atherosclerotic lesions in the popliteal artery is challenging. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of excimer laser ablation (ELA) combined with drug-coated balloon (DCB) for these lesions. METHODS: From June 2019 to December 2021, data of patients who underwent ELA combined with DCB in the popliteal artery were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, lesion characteristics, periprocedural complications, and follow-up information were analyzed. The primary endpoint was primary patency. Secondary endpoints included major amputation-free survival rate, technical success, bailout stenting, clinically-driven target lesion reintervention, improvement of ankle-brachial index (ABI), and Rutherford class. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 73.4 ± 11.7 years. 20 (32.8%) patients had stenotic lesions, while 41 (67.2%) patients had chronic total occlusions. The mean length of these lesions was 7.3 ± 2.8 cm. Procedure technical success rate was 95.1%. Bailout stent was performed in 3 (4.9%) patients. Intraprocedural distal embolization occurred in 3 (4.9%) patients, while flow limiting dissections occurred in 3 (4.9%) patients. The mean ABI was significantly improved from 0.45 ± 0.13 at baseline to 0.90 ± 0.12 after ELA, 0.88 ± 0.11 at 6 months and 0.85 ± 0.12 at 12 months during the follow-up period. The median follow-up time was 28.2 ± 6.1 months. Reintervention was performed in 5 (8.2%) patients. The 2-year primary patency was 83.5%. CONCLUSIONS: ELA combined with DCB is a safe and effective strategy in the treatment of popliteal artery atherosclerotic lesions with low rates of bail-out stenting and high primary patency.

MagicTouch PTA Sirolimus-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal and Below-the-Knee Disease: 3-Year Outcomes of the XTOSI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) is a potential treatment option for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). There are currently no long-term clinical data for this novel treatment for PAD. We present the 3-year results of the first-in-human study of MagicTouch PTA SCB for treatment of PAD for both femoropopliteal and below-the-knee arteries. METHODS: The XTOSI pilot study is a prospective, single-arm, open-label, single-center trial evaluating MagicTouch PTA SCB for symptomatic PAD. Assessments through 3 years included freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), freedom from major amputation, amputation-free survival (AFS), overall survival, and ulcer-free status. RESULTS: At 3 years, the overall freedom from CD-TLR was 84.4%, freedom from major amputation was 86.1%, AFS was 63.3%, overall survival was 63.3%, and ulcer-free status in remaining survivors with intact limbs was 100%. For femoropopliteal lesions, at 3 years, the freedom from CD-TLR was 92.9%, freedom from major amputation was 93.3%, AFS was 70%, and overall survival was 70%. For below-the-knee lesions, at 3 years, the freedom from CD-TLR was 77.8%, freedom from major amputation was 81.0%, AFS was 58.6%, and overall survival was 58.6%. CONCLUSIONS: SCB in the XTOSI pilot study showed promising clinical results sustained to 3 years, and no long-term safety concerns were raised. Randomized trials are currently ongoing to investigate the safety and efficacy of SCB for treatment of PAD.

The Impact of Polypill on Adherence and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Comprehensive Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Polypills, containing various combinations of medications for primary and secondary CVD prevention, have been developed to enhance medication adherence and reduce the healthcare burden of CVD. However, their effectiveness compared to usual care remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of polypills on cardiovascular risk factors, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and medication adherence. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search for large-scale randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the effects of polypills versus usual care on CVD risk factors and events. Outcomes included changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), lipid profiles, occurrence of MACE, and medication adherence. RESULTS: The use of polypills led to a statistically significant yet clinically modest reduction in SBP (mean difference -1.47 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.50 to -0.44, p<0.01) and DBP (mean difference- 1.10 mmHg, 95% CI: -1.68 to -0.51, p< 0.01) compared to usual care. Polypills also showed a significant reduction in the risk of MACE (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77 -0.95, p<0.01). There was a non-significant reduction in LDL and HDL levels. Adherence to medication improved by up to 17% in polypill users compared to those on usual care (p < 0.01). A multivariable metaregression analysis suggested that adherence may be the underlying factor responsible for the observed effect of the polypills on blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Polypills were found to significantly reduce SBP, DBP and MACE. An improvement in medication adherence was also observed among polypill users, which might be responsible for the significant reduction in SBP observed users. Future research might benefit from exploring a more personalized approach to the composition of polypills, which could reveal a more clinically significant impact of increased adherence on CVD outcomes.

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.

Intravascular Ultrasound vs Angiography-Guided Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty: The ULTIMATE â ¢ Trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty seems a safe and effective option for specific de novo coronary lesions. However, the beneficial effect of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided DCB angioplasty in de novo lesions remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the benefits of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance during DCB angioplasty in de novo coronary lesions. METHODS: A total of 260 patients with high bleeding risk who had a de novo coronary lesion (reference vessel diameter 2.0-4.0 mm, and lesion length ≤15 mm) were randomly assigned to either an IVUS-guided or an angioplasty-guided DCB angioplasty group. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 7 months after procedure. The secondary endpoint was target vessel failure at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 2 patients in the angiography-guided group and 7 patients in the IVUS-guided group underwent bailout stent implantation (P = 0.172). The primary endpoint of 7-month LLL was 0.03 ± 0.52 mm with angiography guidance vs -0.10 ± 0.34 mm with IVUS guidance (mean difference 0.14 mm; 95% CI: 0.02-0.26; P = 0.025). IVUS guidance was also associated with a larger 7-month minimal lumen diameter (2.06 ± 0.62 mm vs 1.75 ± 0.63 mm; P < 0.001) and a smaller diameter stenosis (28.15% ± 13.88% vs 35.83% ± 17.69%; P = 0.001) compared with angiography guidance. Five target vessel failures occurred at 6 months, with 4 (3.1%) in the angiography-guided group and 1 (0.8%) in the IVUS-guided group (P = 0.370). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that IVUS-guided DCB angioplasty is associated with a lower LLL in patients with a de novo coronary lesion compared with angiography guidance. (Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography Guided Drug-Coated Balloon [ULTIMATE-III]; NCT04255043).

Matched comparison of uncoated and paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty for isolated popliteal lesions excluding bail-out stenting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCB) in isolated popliteal lesions. BACKGROUND: The benefit of using DCB in femoropopliteal arteries including the proximal popliteal artery has been demonstrated, but has not yet been evaluated for isolated popliteal lesions. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study includes patients requiring treatment with DCB of isolated popliteal lesions. Two cohorts matched (Plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) versus DCB) by their baseline and lesion characteristics were compared. Lesions receiving bail-out stents were excluded. Primary endpoint was the 1-year target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate. Secondary endpoints included the procedural success and complication rate, primary patency, changes in Rutherford-Becker class (RBC) and ankle-brachial index (ABI). RESULTS: One hundred and seven patients were included in this study. More than one third of the patients had critical limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) (35 % (POBA) versus 40.4 % (DCB), p = 0.354. The technical success rate of the procedure was 85.1 % (n = 40/47) in the DCB group and 83.3 % (n = 60) in the POBA group (p = 0.510). There were three complications in the POBA group (5.0 %) but none in the DCB group (p = 0.172). After 12 months, in the entire cohort 14 patients (13.1 %) had to undergo a TLR. The TLR-free survival was 81.7 % in the POBA and 93.6 % in the DCB group (p = 0.060). Primary patency rates after POBA and DCB were 65.1 % and 87.5 % at 6 months (p = 0.024), respectively. At 12 months, the patency rates were 71.7 % and 85.1 % (p = 0.076), respectively. For both treatment arms, there was a significant improvement in ABI and RBC compared to baseline. Four patients from the DCB group and two from the POBA group received a minor amputation (p = 0.232). One patient in the DCB group died within 12 months. CONCLUSION: After one year the use of DCB is by trend more effective for the treatment of isolated popliteal stenosis compared to POBA. A larger scale prospective study is mandatory.

Performance of drug-coated balloons in coronary and below-the-knee arteries: Anatomical, physiological and pathological considerations.

Below-the-knee (infrapopliteal) atherosclerotic disease, which presents as chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in nearly 50% of patients, represents a treatment challenge when it comes to the endovascular intervention arm of management. Due to reduced tissue perfusion, patients usually experience pain at rest and atrophic changes correlated to the extent of the compromised perfusion. Unfortunately, the prognosis remains unsatisfactory with 30% of patients requiring major amputation and a mortality rate of 25% within 1 year. To date, randomized multicentre trials of endovascular intervention have shown that drug-eluting stents (DES) increase patency rate and lower target lesion revascularization rate compared to plain balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents. The majority of these trials recruited patients with focal infrapopliteal lesions, while most patients requiring endovascular intervention have complex and diffuse atherosclerotic disease. Moreover, due to the nature of the infrapopliteal arteries, the use of long DES is limited. Following recent results of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of femoropopliteal and coronary arteries, it was hoped that similar effective results would be achieved in the infrapopliteal arteries. In reality, multicentre trials have failed to support the proposed hypothesis and no advantage was found in using DCBs in comparison to plain balloon angioplasty. This review aims to explore anatomical, physiological and pathological differences between lesions of the infrapopliteal and coronary arteries to explain the differences in outcome when using DCBs.

Biological differences of three paclitaxel- and sirolimus-coated balloons on coronary lesions in a rabbit model.

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are important treatment options for coronary artery disease; however, randomised controlled trials comparing various DCB technologies are sparse, and further investigations are needed. AIMS: This preclinical study aimed to histologically and biologically compare the drug effects and safety of a low-dose paclitaxel-coated DCB (PCB; AGENT), a regular-dose PCB (SeQuent Please NEO) and a sirolimus-coated DCB (SCB; MagicTouch). METHODS: The DCBs were inflated in the healthy iliac arteries of 18 rabbits, which were euthanised after 28 days. The treated iliac arteries and distal skeletal muscles were histopathologically evaluated, and drug concentrations were measured. RESULTS: In the histopathological evaluation, the medial smooth muscle cell loss score regarding depth, an indicator of drug efficacy, was significantly higher with AGENT and SeQuent Please NEO than with MagicTouch (4.0 [3.6-4.0] vs 3.7 [3.7-4.0] vs 2.2 [2.0-2.4]), with significant differences in comparisons between AGENT and MagicTouch (p<0.01) and between SeQuent Please NEO and MagicTouch (p<0.01). AGENT and SeQuent Please NEO showed comparable drug concentrations in the treated artery (p=0.61). In contrast, the drug concentrations in distal skeletal muscles were the highest for MagicTouch, followed by SeQuent Please NEO and AGENT (28.07 [13.19-52.46] ng/mg vs 0.66 [0.22-3.76] ng/mg vs 0.25 [0.04-3.23] ng/mg, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that PCBs might have higher efficacy and lower drug concentrations in distal skeletal muscles than the MagicTouch SCB. The efficacy of the AGENT low-dose PCB and the SeQuent Please NEO regular-dose PCB was comparable.

Long-Term Results of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: The RIBS VI Study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) provide similar results to drug-coated balloons (DCBs) but are inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) at 1 year. However, the long-term efficacy of BVS in these patients remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR. METHODS: RIBS VI (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment; NCT02672878) and RIBS VI Scoring (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment With Scoring Balloon; NTC03069066) are prospective multicenter studies designed to evaluate the results of BVS in patients with ISR (N = 220). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical to those used in the RIBS IV (ISR of DES) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Drug-eluting Stents: Drug-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239940) and RIBS V (ISR of bare-metal stents) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239953) randomized trials (including 249 ISR patients treated with DCBs and 249 ISR patients treated with DES). A prespecified comparison of the long-term results obtained with these treatment modalities (ie, DES, DCBs, and BVS) was performed. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up at 3 years was obtained in all (100%) 718 patients. The 3-year target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was 14.1% (vs 12.9% after DCBs [not significant], and 5.2% after DES [HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.47-5.36; P = 0.001]). In a landmark analysis (>1 year), the target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was higher than after DES (adjusted HR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.15-10.08) and DCBs (adjusted HR: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.14-9.70). Very late vessel thrombosis was also more frequent with BVS (BVS: 1.8%, DCBs: 0.4%, DES: 0%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, late clinical results of DES are superior to those obtained with DCBs and BVS. Beyond the first year, DCBs are safer and more effective than BVS.

Temporal Trends in the Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Zotarolimus Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus Eluting Stents: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term follow-up results of various trials comparing Zotarolimus eluting stents (ZES) with Everolimus eluting stents (EES) have been published recently. Additionally, over the last decade, there have been new trials comparing the ZES with various commercially available EES. We aim to conduct an updated meta-analysis in light of new evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide comprehensive evidence regarding the temporal trends in the clinical outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. RCTs comparing ZES with EES for short (<2 years), intermediate (2-3 years), and long-term follow-ups (3-5 years) were included. Relative risk was used to pool the dichotomous outcomes using the random effects model employing the inverse variance method. All statistical analysis was conducted using Revman 5.4. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies reporting data at different follow-ups for nine trials (n = 14319) were included. At short-term follow-up (<2 years), there were no significant differences between the two types of stents (all-cause death, cardiac death, Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis or safety outcomes (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, target vessel failure, target lesion failure). At intermediate follow-up (2-3 years), EES was superior to ZES for reducing target lesion revascularization (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.05-1.58, p < 0.05). At long-term follow-up (3-5 years), there were no significant differences between the two groups for any of the pooled outcomes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: ZES and EES have similar safety and efficacy at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-ups.

Biolimus-coated versus paclitaxel-coated balloons for coronary in-stent restenosis (BIO ASCEND ISR): a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains challenging in current clinical practice. AIMS: The study was conducted to investigate a novel biolimus-coated balloon (BCB) for the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with the best-investigated paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing a novel BCB with a clinically proven PCB for coronary DES-ISR. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months assessed by an independent core laboratory. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography were performed in a prespecified subgroup of patients. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients at 17 centres were randomised to treatment with a BCB (n=140) versus a PCB (n=140). At 9 months, LLL in the BCB group was 0.23±0.37 mm compared to 0.25±0.35 mm in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.12 to 0.07) mm; p-value for non-inferiority<0.0001. Similar clinical outcomes were also observed for both groups at 12 months. In the optical coherence tomography substudy, the neointimal area at 9 months was 2.32±1.04 mm2 in the BCB group compared to 2.37±0.93 mm2 in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.09 (95% CI: -0.94 to 0.76) mm2; p=non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison of a novel BCB shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04733443).

A Novel Sirolimus-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Lesions: The SELUTION SFA Japan Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal (FP) lesions have not been systematically studied, but initial outcomes from early studies are promising. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the SELUTION SLR SCB, composed of proprietary microreservoir technology combining sirolimus and biodegradable polymer, when used to treat mild-to-moderate FP disease in a Japanese population. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm study (SELUTION SFA JAPAN) enrolled 134 patients with FP disease. It was independently adjudicated by an imaging core laboratory and clinical events committee. The primary endpoint was 12-month primary patency, defined as peak systolic velocity ratio ≥2.5 by duplex ultrasound and compared against a prespecified performance goal of 60% based on established angioplasty data. RESULTS: The mean age was 73.8 ± 6.9 years, and 60.3% of patients had diabetes mellitus. The mean lesion length was 127.4 ± 59.7 mm, 17.2% were chronic total occlusions, and 47.8% involved the popliteal artery. Data on 12-month restenosis were available in 127 patients (94.8%). The 12-month primary patency rate was 87.9%, and the freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) was 97.0% per Kaplan-Meier estimate. The major adverse event rate was 6.7%, driven by 4 CD-TLRs and 5 deaths, none of which were related to the device or procedure. Ankle-brachial index data improved significantly from 0.73 ± 0.16 at baseline to 0.96 ± 0.14 at 30 days postprocedure and was sustained through 12 months (0.94 ± 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The SELUTION SFA JAPAN trial demonstrated that a novel SELUTION SCB is a safe and effective treatment option for FP disease in symptomatic patients.

Outcomes With Limus- vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the outcomes with limus drug-coated balloons (DCBs) vs paclitaxel DCBs were small and underpowered for clinical endpoints. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes with limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed through January 2024 for RCTs comparing limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for PCI. The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were late angiographic findings. Summary estimates were constructed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 821 patients were included; 446 patients received a limus DCB, and 375 patients received a paclitaxel DCB. There was no difference between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs in the incidence of TLR at a mean of 13.4 months (10.3% vs 7.8%; risk ratio [RR]: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant interaction among studies for de novo coronary lesions vs in-stent restenosis (Pinteraction = 0.58). There were no differences in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiac mortality, or target vessel myocardial infarction between groups. However, limus DCBs were associated with a higher risk of binary restenosis (RR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.14-3.12), late lumen loss (mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28), and a smaller minimum lumen diameter (mean difference = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02) at late follow-up. In addition, late lumen enlargement occurred more frequently (50% vs 27.5%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) with paclitaxel DCBs. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing DCB-only PCI, there were no differences in the risk of clinically driven TLR and other clinical outcomes between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs. However, paclitaxel DCBs were associated with better late angiographic outcomes. These findings support the need for future trials to establish the role of new-generation limus DCBs for PCI.