Safety Of Drug-coated Balloon Research Articles

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

BackgroundWith 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFive 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.ConclusionAccordingly, DCB has the potential to be used as a treatment for CTO in suitable patients.

Drug Coated Balloon vs. Drug Eluting Stent in Multiculprit Primary Percutaneous Revascularization

Background: Patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) frequently face multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The optimal interventional approach remains debated. Objective: To systematically review and analyze the effectiveness and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in multiculprit primary PCI through a randomized controlled trial. Methods: This prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial included 100 patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD at Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar from April 2023 to March 2024. Patients aged 18 years or older requiring revascularization of two or more culprit lesions were randomized into two groups: one received DCBs and the other DES. Exclusions were based on contraindications to dual antiplatelet therapy, allergies to study drugs, bleeding disorders, or life expectancy under one year. Results: Each group comprised 50 patients. The prevalence of hypertension (56% in DCB vs. 60% in DES, p=0.68) and diabetes (36% in DCB vs. 40% in DES, p=0.72) was similar. TVR rates were 10% for DCB and 8% for DES (p=0.45). MACE rates were 14% for DCB and 12% for DES (p=0.37). Conclusion: The study supports the use of DCB as an alternative to DES in specific clinical scenarios, emphasizing the need for tailored treatment decisions based on individual patient and lesion characteristics.

The Efficacy and Safety of Drug-Coated Balloons in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction

The Efficacy and Safety of Drug-Coated Balloons in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Feasibility and Safety of Drug-Coated Balloon for Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions in Large Vessel Disease: A Large-Scale Multicenter Prospective Study.

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been evaluated to be safe and practical in treating coronary small vessel disease (SVD). However, evidence about the practicality and safety of DCB in treating coronary lesions with diameters greater than 3.0 mm is limited. 1166 patients who received DCB angioplasty were enrolled and divided into groups of SVD or large vessel disease (LVD) according to the target vessel diameters ( 3.0 mm for SVD; 3.0 mm for LVD). All participants received a 2-year follow-up. The two main outcomes were patient-oriented composite endpoint (patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), all-cause mortality, all myocardial infarctions [MI], or any revascularization), and target lesion failure (target lesion failure (TLF), cardiac death, target vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). In these patients, a total of 30 (2.6%) TLF and 82 (7.0%) POCE were recorded. Patients in the LVD group showed statistically greater rates of lesion success compared to the SVD group (752 [96.0%] vs. 380 [99.2%], p = 0.004) and procedural success (751 [95.9%] vs. 380 [99.2%], p = 0.003). No significant difference was found in the 2-year risk of TLF (hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% CI 0.58-3.44; p = 0.455), POCE (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.76-2.20; p = 0.354), MI (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.24-3.13; p = 0.837), revascularization (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.68-2.21; p = 0.506), and stroke (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.03-15.26; p = 0.784) between the SVD and LVD groups. There was no discernible inferiority of the DCB intervention in the LVD group as compared to the SVD group. The DCB intervention is practical for coronary lesions with diameters higher than 3.0 mm.

Effectiveness of drug-coated balloon in acute myocardial infarction: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

The management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has improved dramatically over the past 3 decades and is evolving. Percutaneous coronary intervention is an alternative means of achieving coronary revascularization. Previous studies comparing the published literature on drug-coated balloon (DCB) and drug-eluting stents have drawn divergent conclusions. We perform a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of DCB and drug-eluting stent in the management of AMI. This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO network (registration number: CRD42023397266). We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocol to accomplish the systematic review protocol. A systematic search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and Weipu Database without any language restrictions from their inception to February 2022. The risk of bias will be assessed independently by 2 authors using parameters defined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions criteria. Statistical analysis will be performed using the STATA13.0 software (IBM, USA). The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be publicly available and published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results of the study will provide the evidence for the application of DCB in the treatment of AMI.

Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Through meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCB), compared with drug-eluting stents (DES) or uncoated devices, in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcomes were late lumen loss (LLL), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on clinical indications, whether DCBs were used with a systematic or bailout stent, and types of DESs. The present meta-analysis demonstrated that DCBs elicit significantly lower incidences of TLR, MACE, and LLL, compared with uncoated devices, and similar incidences, compared with DESs, in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Subgroup analysis indicated that DCBs used with a bailout stent achieved lower incidences of binary restenosis and myocardial infarction, compared with uncoated devices, and provided less LLL than DESs. DCBs showed similar rates of TLR and MACE, with significantly less LLL, than DESs in treating de novo small-vessel diseases. The clinical efficacy of DCBs was similar to that of second-generation DES. Overall, DCB is favored over bare metal stent alone in treating de novo coronary lesions. DCBs appear to be a promising alternative to DESs in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for De Novo Coronary Lesions.

Data are limited on the long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in comparison to drug-eluting stent (DES) for de novo coronary lesions. We investigated the long-term clinical outcomes of DCB treatment in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo coronary lesions. A total of 103 patients scheduled for elective PCI for de novo non-small coronary lesions (≥2.5 mm) who were successfully treated with DCB alone were retrospectively compared with 103 propensity-matched patients treated with second-generation DES from the PTRG-DES registry (n=13160). All patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events [MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, target lesion thrombosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major bleeding] at 5 years. At 5-year clinical follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rate of MACE were significantly lower in the DCB group [2.9% vs. 10.7%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.96; log-rank p=0.027]. There was a significantly lower incidence of TVR in the DCB group (1.0% vs. 7.8%; HR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.01-0.98; long-rank p=0.015), and there was major bleeding only in the DES group (0.0% vs. 1.9%; log-rank p=0.156). At 5-year follow-up, DCB treatment was significantly associated with reduced incidences of MACE and TVR, compared with DES implantation, for de novo coronary lesions.

The comparative short-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon vs. drug-eluting stent for treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients.

This meta-analysis aimed to explore the comparative short-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) vs. drug-eluting stent (DES) for treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) for retrieving relevant studies regarding the comparison of DCB with DES in treating small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients until May 31, 2022. Two independent authors screened study, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Then, the meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software, version 5.4. We included 6 studies with 847 patients in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that DCB was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) [RR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-0.93; p = 0.02], myocardial infarction (MI) (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.94; p = 0.03), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.69; p < 0.001), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.63; p < 0.001), binary restenosis (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68; p = 0.005), and late lumen loss (LLL) [mean difference (MD), -0.31; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.27; p < 0.001], but was comparable technique success rate, death, minimal lumen diameter (MLD), and net lumen gain (NLG) to DES. There was no difference in long-term outcomes between these two techniques. This meta-analysis shows that DCB is better than DES in the short-term therapeutic efficacy and safety of small-vessel coronary artery lesions in diabetic patients. However, more studies are required to validate our findings and investigate the long-term effects and safety of DCB.

TCT-133 Efficacy and Safety of Drug-Coated Balloons According to Coronary Vessel Size: A Report From the BASKET-SMALL 2 Trial

TCT-133 Efficacy and Safety of Drug-Coated Balloons According to Coronary Vessel Size: A Report From the BASKET-SMALL 2 Trial

Comparison between drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in very small coronary artery interventions

The optimal management of very small vessel (reference diameter from 2.0 to 2.25 mm) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) for de-novo very small vessel interventions. We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who received very small vessel PCI with a DCB or DES between January 2018 and March 2021. The outcome measures were the incidence of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) within 1 year after PCI. MACCEs were defined as the composite of ischemia-driven TLR, all-cause death, non-fatal acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure requiring hospitalization. A total of 205 patients undergoing PCI with a DCB or DES were enrolled in this study. The procedural complication rate was 2.5% in the DES group and 1.7% in the DCB group (P = 1.000). After 1-year of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of TLR was 7.2% in the DCB group and 4.9% in the DES group (P = 0.530). The cumulative incidence of MACCEs was 10.6% in the DCB group and 12.7% in the DES group (P = 0.769). Only female gender, acute coronary syndrome on presentation, and dual antiplatelet therapy duration < 3 months were significantly associated with MACCEs at 1 year, but the use of DCB or DES was not. The use of DCBs or DESs in de novo very small vessel intervention was not associated with different outcomes at 1 year.

Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for Delayed Recanalization of Symptomatic Intracranial Artery Occlusion

Patients with medically refractory non-acute intracranial artery occlusion (ICAO) are difficult to treat. The optimal intervention for these patients is not known. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment for non-acute ICAO. Consecutive patients with symptomatic medically refractory atherosclerotic non-acute ICAO from January 2015 to July 2021 who underwent DCB treatment were retrospectively analyzed. The rates of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and death within 30 days and the follow-up results were evaluated. A total of 148 patients were enrolled in this study. The 30-day rate of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and death was 8.8%. During the 25.8 ± 15.8-month clinical follow-up period, the rate of outcome beyond 30 days was 4.7%. In the 66 patients with vessel imaging follow-up, 13.6% (9/66) had restenosis. The present study suggests that DCB dilatation is a feasible and effective alternative in carefully selected patients with symptomatic non-acute ICAO.

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.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in very small vessels: a prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial.

BackgroundEvidence of the use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) in de novo large or small coronary lesions and in-stent restenosis has accumulated over the past years. Due to their anatomical peculiarity, the treatment of very small vessels (VSV) (lumen diameter <2 mm) is still a controversial issue. Studies that examine the use of DCB in VSV are limited. We investigated the efficacy and safety of using DCBs for the de novo coronary lesions in VSV undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsIn this prospective, single-arm study, we enrolled adult patients with coronary artery disease from six centers in China. A total of 29 patients had VSV with a target lesion stenosis ≥70% were included. All patients were treated with DCB. The primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months of follow-up. The secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events including target lesion revascularization, death, or myocardial infarction at 9 months of follow-up.ResultsTwenty-nine eligible patients with VSV were enrolled between November 2019 to May 2020. Angiographic and clinical follow-up were completed at 9 months in 18 (56.25%) patients (7 patients refused to final angiography; 2 failed to finish DCB angioplasty; 1 patient request; 1 other causes of death). The mean diameter of the reference vessel of the target lesion was 1.71±0.27 mm, the minimum lumen diameter (MLD) of the target lesion before operation was 0.31±0.24 mm, the average LLL of the target lesion was 0.13±0.28 mm, and the MLD of the target vessel immediately after operation was (1.19±0.20 mm) and at the 9-month follow-up (1.06±0.31 mm) were significantly higher than those before operation (P=0.043). One patient (5.56%) underwent revascularization. No myocardial infarction or death occurred during follow-up after treatment with DCBs.ConclusionsDCB can be a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions in VSV.

Long-term outcomes of paclitaxel-coated balloons for non-malignant ureteral strictures.

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) ureteroplasty for the management of non-malignant ureteral strictures. A prospective "off-label" monocentric single-arm pilot study investigating the safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) (Lutonix®; BD, USA) was performed. Twenty-five patients with benign ureteral strictures related to uretero-enteric anastomosis (n = 13); lithiasis (n = 5), post-surgical complications (iatrogenic n = 5), transplanted kidney (n = 1) and post-radiotherapy (n = 1) were included. Following lesion crossing, predilatation was performed using 4-7mm high-pressure balloon catheter (5-6Fr) with a balloon pressure of 6-7atm based on the manufacturer's recommendation. In the absence of rupture of the ureteral wall, the DCB was dilated for 4min. across the lesion. The process was repeated if deemed necessary to a maximum of three stricture dilatations. We analysed both clinical and radiological primary patency (no signs of ipsilateral hydronephrosis or improvement of the existing residual dilatation at the follow-up examinations) and secondarily safety endpoints. Mean lesion length was 40 ± 28.5mm. Mean time follow up was 36months ± 10.46months. Strictures were located at upper ureteric (12%), lower ureteric (32%), ureterovesical anastomosis (4%) and uretero-enteric anastomosis (52%) levels. The overall radiological success at 1-year follow-up was 88% (22/25 patients). In 56% patients (14/25 patients with primary patency) the nephrostomy catheter was removed 21days following a single DCB procedure. In 32% (8/25 patients) an additional dilatation sessions were required for maintaining the ureteral patency. The overall failure rate at 1-year follow-up was 12% (3/25 patients). Only one case of febrile urinary tract infection in a female patient (acute pyelonephritis) was encountered after the first dilatation. Paclitaxel-coated balloon ureteroplasty proved to be safe and effective for the treatment of non-malignant ureteral strictures. Larger studies are warranted to validate these promising initial results.

Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease in patients with chronic kidney disease: a pre-specified analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial

BackgroundData on the safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared to drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are scarce, particularly at long term. This pre-specified analysis aimed to investigate the 3-year efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES for small coronary artery disease (< 3 mm) according to renal function at baseline.MethodsBASKET-SMALL-2 was a large multi-center, randomized, controlled trial that tested the efficacy and safety of DCBs (n = 382) against DESs (n = 376) in small vessel disease. CKD was defined as eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (MACE) during 3 years.ResultsA total of 174/758 (23%) patients had CKD, out of which 91 were randomized to DCB and 83 to DES implantation. The primary efficacy outcome during 3 years was similar in both, DCB and DES patients (HR 0.98; 95%-CI 0.67–1.44; p = 0.937) and patients with and without CKD (HR 1.18; 95%-CI 0.76–1.83; p = 0.462), respectively. Rates of cardiac death and all-cause death were significantly higher among patients with CKD but not affected by treatment with DCB or DES. Major bleeding events were lower in the DCB when compared to the DES group (12 vs. 3, HR 0.26; 95%-CI 0.07–0.92; p = 0.037) and not influenced by presence of CKD.ConclusionsThe long-term efficacy and safety of DCB was similar in patients with and without CKD. The use of DCB was associated with significantly fewer major bleeding events (NCT 01574534).Graphical Central Illustration. Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stents in small coronary artery disease with and without chronic kidney disease, a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons according to coronary vessel size. A report from the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial.

IntroductionIn BASKET-SMALL 2, drug-coated balloons (DCB) were non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) in de-novo stenosis of small coronary vessels (≤ 2.75 mm) regarding clinical endpoints up to 36 months.AimIn the present subgroup analysis, we aimed to analyze the effect of the two treatment strategies in different vessel sizes.Material and methodsPatients were analyzed according to the size of the device used (small > 2.5 mm vs. very small ≤ 2.5 mm). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), while secondary endpoints were target vessel revascularization (TVR), non-fatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality, all at 36 months. Interactions for the different groups were assessed with Cox regression analysis.ResultsOverall, 758 patients were enrolled in this analysis, of which 437 (58%) had very small vessel disease. There were similar results in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint in both small and very small vessels (DCB vs DES, MACE at 3 years in small vessels HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.74–2.32, p = 0.355, and very small vessels HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.49–1.39, p = 0.468). Second generation paclitaxel-eluting stents showed significantly higher rates for MACE (p = 0.041), TVR (p = 0.004) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (p = 0.036) compared to DCB in very small coronary arteries at 3 years, while results were similar in small coronary arteries.ConclusionsEfficacy and safety of DCB are similar irrespective of vessel size. However, there is a beneficial effect of DCB over paclitaxel-eluting stents regarding TVR, non-fatal myocardial infarction and MACE that is most pronounced in very small coronary arteries.

Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Standard Uncoated Balloon Angioplasty for Long Femoropopliteal Lesions: Post Hoc Analysis of the 24-Month Results of the AcoArt I Study

Restenosis is a common complication after endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment has been proven safe and effective in reducing the rate of restenosis for simple and short lesions. However, the clinical results of DCBs for long lesions are still very limited. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCBs in the treatment of long femoropopliteal artery disease. And the results of this study will also complement the existing evidence of DCB treatment of long lesions. Patients with lesion length ≥ 15cm according to computed tomography angiography (CTA) or angiography in the AcoArt I Study were included into this study. Based on the balloon catheter used in treatment, patients were divided into the DCB group and the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) group. The demographic, lesion, and procedural characteristics and 24-month follow-up results were compared between the 2 groups. The primary efficacy endpoints were angiographic late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months or at the time of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), primary patency (PP), freedom from CD-TLR, and changes in the ankle-brachial index (ABI) and Rutherford class during 24 months of follow-up. The safety endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse events. The total number of patients was 87, including 42 in the DCB group and 45 in the PTA group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in demographic, lesion,and procedural characteristics. The 6-month follow-up angiography showed that the LLL was significantly smaller in the DCB group than the PTA group (0.27 ± 0.90 mm vs 1.32 ± 0.91 mm; P < 0.001). At 24 months, compared with the PTA group, the DCB group had a significantly higher rate of freedom from CD-TLR (81.58% vs 43.18%; P < 0.001) and a significantly higher PP rate (46.88% vs 15.00%; P=0.003). The DCB group had a significantly higher ABI than the PTA group at 6, 12, and 24 months (P < 0.001, P=0.004 and P=0.018, respectively). The DCB group had a better Rutherford class than the PTA group at 6 and 12 months (P=0.033 and P=0.012, respectively); the Rutherford class did not significantly differ between the 2 groups at 24 months (P=0.127). The incidence of major adverse events did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. The effectiveness of the DCB is superior to a standard uncoated balloon in treating long lesions during 24 months of follow-up. Furthermore, the safety of the DCB is equivalent to that of PTA.

Paclitaxel Coated Balloon vs. Bare Metal Stent for Endovascular Treatment of Symptomatic Vertebral Artery Origin Stenosis Patients: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Stenting treatment for refractory symptomatic patients with vertebral artery origin stenosis (VAOS) is safe; however, there is a high rate of in-stent restenosis. Although drug-eluting stents can reduce the incidence of restenosis to some extent, there is still a risk caused by stent fracture. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been proven to reduce the rate of restenosis in peripheral and coronary artery disease. DCB can prevent inflammation caused by extraneous material stimulation and allow the subsequent treatment that is characteristic of “leave nothing behind.” The purpose of this trial is to compare the efficacy and safety of DCB and bare metal stent (BMS) in the treatment of VAOS.Method/Design: This trial is a 1:1 randomized, controlled, multicenter, non-inferiority trial that compares the DCB to BMS in terms of angiographically assessed target lesion binary restenosis (≥50%) at 12 months in endovascular treatment of symptomatic patients with VAOS.Discussion: A total of 180 patients with symptomatic VAOS who match the trial eligibility criteria will be randomized 1:1 to treatment with DCB (n = 90) or BMS (n = 90). An angiographic core laboratory-adjudicated target lesion binary restenosis (≥50%) at 12 months of follow-up was selected as primary efficacy endpoint to assess the DCB treatment effect. A clinical events committee will assess the safety endpoints of all-cause death, target vessel related transient ischemic attack and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke events. A data safety monitoring board will periodically review safety data for subject safety, the study conduct, and progress. In this trial, randomization is only allowed after successful pre-dilatation. We anticipate that this trial will provide rigorous data to clarify whether DCBs are beneficial in patients with symptomatic VAOS.Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03910166.

Drug-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Tosaka Class III In-stent Restenosis Lesions.

Background: To date, there have been few studies examining the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty in the treatment of Tosaka class III in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions in the clinical setting. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of DCBs in patients with Tosaka class III ISR femoropopliteal lesions.Methods: This single-center study enrolled 28 femoropopliteal ISR Tosaka III patients who were treated by DCB angioplasty from September 2016 to September 2018. The patency, the freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate, clinical improvement, and safety endpoints were analyzed during a 14-month follow-up period.Results: Out of the 28 patients, 32.1% presented with critical limb ischemia. The mean lesion length was 250.4 ± 93.9 mm. Technical success was achieved in all lesions (100%). Debulking devices were used in 50% of lesions, and bailout stents were performed in 3.6% of patients. Kaplan Meier estimates that the 14-month primary patency was 79.2% (95% CI 60.6–97.8%), whereas the freedom from TLR rate was 91.5% (95% CI 80.1–100%). Clinical symptoms improved by at least 1 Rutherford category in 82.1% of limbs. The ankle-brachial index (ABI) values improved from 0.51 ± 0.30 to 1.05 ± 0.22 at the final follow-up (P < 0.001). The rate of freedom from 30-day major adverse limb events (MALEs) was 100%. The mortality rate was 7.1%.Conclusion: These results suggested that the use of DCBs is safe and effective in treating femoropopliteal Tosaka class III ISR lesions.

Safety and Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To investigate the safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloons (DCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal or infrapopliteal lesions in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central up to January 2020 to identify randomized trials and observational studies presenting data on the effectiveness and safety of DCBs in the treatment of femoropopliteal or infrapopliteal lesions. A meta-analysis utilizing random effects modeling was conducted to investigate primary patency and all-cause mortality at 12 months; the results are reported as the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes were procedural success, bailout stenting, target lesion revascularization (TLR), reocclusion, major amputation, wound healing, and major adverse limb events. Results: Twenty-six studies, 12 retrospective and 14 prospective, comprising 2108 CLTI patients treated with DCBs for femoropopliteal (n=1315) or infrapopliteal (n=793) lesions were analyzed. The average lesion lengths were 121±44 and 135±53 mm, respectively. The overall 12-month all-cause mortality and major amputation rates were 9% (95% CI 6% to 13%) and 5% (95% CI 2% to 8%), respectively. Primary patency rates were 82% (95% CI 76% to 87%) and 64% (95% CI 58% to 70%), respectively. A sensitivity analysis of the infrapopliteal lesions demonstrated no difference between DCB and balloon angioplasty in terms of primary patency, TLR, major amputation, or mortality over 12 months. However, patients with infrapopliteal lesions undergoing DCB angioplasty did have a significantly lower risk for reocclusion (10% vs 25%; OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70, p=0.002). Conclusion: DCB angioplasty of femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal lesions in patients with CLTI results in acceptable 12-month patency rates, although comparative data have not shown a patency benefit for infrapopliteal lesions. The 12-month mortality rate of DCB vs balloon angioplasty was not significantly different, but studies with longer-term outcomes are necessary to determine any association between DCB use and mortality in patients with CLTI.