
==== Front
Cardiol J
Cardiol J
Cardiology Journal
1897-5593
1898-018X
Via Medica

39212183
10.5603/cj.98927
cardj-31-4-507
Interventional Cardiology: Editorial
Are we at dawn of the drug-coated balloons era? Current evidence, future directions, and tasks of the newly established working group of the Association of Cardiovascular Interventions
Iwańczyk Sylwia 12
Bujak Kamil 3
Wolny Rafał 4
Janas Adam 56
Dziarmaga Miłosz 7
Opolski Maksymilian P. 4
Januszek Rafał 8
Włodarczak Adrian 910
Desperak Piotr 11
Niezgoda Piotr 12
Kryjak Michał 13
Tomaniak Mariusz 14
Huczek Zenon 14
Hawranek Michał 3
Cortese Bernardo 215
Wańha Wojciech 216
1 1st Department of Cardiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
2 DCB Academy, Milano, Italy
3 3rd Department of Cardiology, Silesian Center for Heart Disease, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Zabrze, Poland
4 Department of Interventional Cardiology and Angiology, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland
5 American Heart of Poland, Center of Cardiovascular Research and Development, Poland
6 Division of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
7 Department of Cardiology-Intensive Therapy, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
8 Department of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
9 Faculty of Health Science and Physical Culture, Witelon Collegium State University, Legnica, Poland
10 Department of Cardiology, The Copper Health Centre (MCZ), Lubin, Poland
11 Department of Cardiology, Public Clinical Hospital, Rybnik, Poland
12 Department of Cardiology and Internal Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland
13 Department of Cardiology, The Doctor Sokolowski Hospital, Walbrzych, Poland
14 First Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
15 Fondazione Ricerca e Innovazione Cardiovascolare, Milano, Italy
16 Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Address for correspondence: Wojciech Wańha, MD, Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, ul. Ziołowa 45, 40–635 Katowice, Poland, tel: +48 32 359 80 00, fax: +48 32 202 87 54, e-mail: wojciech.wanha@gmail.com
2024
29 8 2024
31 4 507511
15 1 2024
05 6 2024
Copyright © 2024 Via Medica
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.
==== Body
pmcOptimal treatment method of coronary lesions remains a subject of debate. The current-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have become the gold standard of interventional treatment of coronary lesions thanks to a lower risk of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and stent thrombosis compared to bare-metal stents and first-generation DES [1]. However, in the past decade, a concept of “leaving nothing behind” has emerged to address late stent-related issues (including recurrent ISR, multiple layers of stents or impaired vasomotor function) and avoid stenting of potential sites of coronary bypass anastomoses [2, 3]. Bioresorbable scaffolds were developed in line with this concept, but their first generation failed to demonstrate at least non-inferiority compared with the currently available DES [3].

Consequently, in recent years, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have gained particular interest as yet another technology fitting into the “leaving nothing behind” concept. Although the idea of delivering antiproliferative agents such as paclitaxel or sirolimus directly into the coronary lesion to prevent restenosis is not entirely new, the recent developments in balloons and excipients allowed conquering the initial problems with tissue absorption and retention of the drug [2]. Since then, multiple DCBs have become available on the European market, and different indications for their use have started to be evaluated in registries and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Fig. 1) [2, 4].

The most extensive available evidence exists on the DCB utilization for ISR treatment. To date, the results of several RCTs have been published, confirming the safety and efficacy of DCBs in this indication [5]. Based on their findings, DCB use for ISR is currently supported by the European Society of Cardiology recommendations (class IA) and, to date, represents the sole indication for DCBs [6]. Of note, the largest individual patient data meta-analysis of 10 RCTs showed a moderately higher incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) at three years in patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons compared to DES (16.0% vs. 12.0%; p = 0.02) [5]. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in terms of the primary safety endpoint (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis), with a numerically lower rate of this outcome in the DCB arm (9.0% vs. 10.9%; p = 0.18) [5]. This underlines the need for further adequately powered RCTs to evaluate the potential net benefits of the stentless approach for ISR. Moreover, considering differences in the mode of action and pharmacokinetics between sirolimus and paclitaxel, the presence of the class effect is unlikely, and head-to-head comparisons of different DCBs are desired [2, 6].

The lower performance of DES in small vessel (< 3 mm) de novo lesions has intuitively led to the use of DCBs in this setting [2, 7]. Although the body of evidence is less robust compared with ISR, the initial findings of first RCTs are encouraging [2, 7]. Noteworthy, the 3-year outcomes of the PICCOLETO II trial (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment), for the first time, showed the superiority of DCB compared to modern DES in terms of clinical outcomes (major adverse cardiac events and acute vessel occlusion) [7]. This may be attributed to late lumen enlargement observed in patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons (and to a lesser extent with limus-based DCBs) and shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) [2, 7]. On the other hand, the DCB use may be challenging for less experienced operators, who may struggle with the elastic recoil and dissections, both of which are relatively frequent reasons for bailout stenting and may limit the external validity of DCB trials conducted in high-volume centers [7].

Recently, the investigational use of DCBs has been extended to de novo large vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Although data from randomized trials that directly evaluate the DCB-based approach in large vessels have not been published, the results of observational studies are promising. Rosenberg et al. [8] reported the outcomes of 234 patients with de novo CAD treated with SeQuent Please® DCB stratified by the vessel diameter smaller or larger than 2.75 mm. At nine months, the authors observed a comparable major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate of 5.7% in small and 6.1% in large vessel CAD (p = 0.903). The incidence of TLR was also acceptable and did not differ between groups (3.8% and 1.0%, p = = 0.20). Uskela et al. [9] retrospectively analyzed 487 DCB procedures in 562 de-novo complex lesions, including 60% localized in vessels ≥ 3.0 mm in diameter and 79% over 2.75 mm. At 12 months, the MACE rate of 7.1% for stable CAD and 12% for ACS were reported. The incidence of TLR was also low and amounted 1.4% for stable CAD and 2.8% for ACS.

Gitto et al. [10] compared 147 consecutive patients undergoing a DCB-based treatment on the left anterior descending artery to 701 patients who received conventional PCI with DES. Large vessels (> 3 mm) accounted for most treated lesions in both groups with higher representation in the DES cohort (76.2% vs. 83.5%, p = 0.036). In turn, in the DCB group, significantly longer lesions were treated (65 [40–82] vs. 56 [46–66] mm, p = 0.002). A propensity score matching analysis composed of 139 matched pairs revealed a lower risk for target lesion failure at two years for DCB-based treatment compared with DES-only PCI (HR 0.2 [95% CI, 0.07–0.58], p = 0.003), mainly driven by less TLR.

Other patient populations with de novo lesions who could potentially benefit from DCBs are those with long and diffuse CAD, bifurcation lesions, and patients at high risk of bleeding for whom prolonged DAPT is not recommended [10–14].

Long and diffuse de novo CAD is a growing problem among patients undergoing PCI, and the total stent length independently predicts ISR and stent thrombosis [11]. Recent data suggest approaching long and diffuse lesions using either a DCB-only or a hybrid strategy (including DCB and spot stenting). Preliminary retrospective data suggest such strategies may be comparable or even better when compared to the DES-only approach [10, 12].

Approximately 20% of bifurcation PCI is associated with side-branch (SB) occlusion and the need for reintervention [13]. DCB has been proposed as an alternative to a plain balloon angioplasty for a SB intervention in the stepwise provisional stenting approach of true coronary bifurcation lesions [15]. Compared to the two-stent techniques, DCB use in the SB eliminates the possibility of inadequate bifurcation coverage by stents, ostium scaffolding, main branch stent deformation, or crushing several metal layers and polymers [13, 14]. Moreover, DCB is theoretically superior to a regular balloon in terms of vascular remodeling, plaque stabilization, and late angiography outcomes.

Stent implantation may require potent and prolonged DAPT, which increases the bleeding risk and, consequently, the risk of premature DAPT discontinuation [16, 17]. Delivery of an antiproliferative drug to the coronary artery wall without implanting a metal stent significantly reduces the risk of vessel thrombosis [18]. Thus, shortening of the DAPT regimen following DCB therapy appears to be justified, reducing both the risk of bleeding and, indirectly, ischemic complications.

Acute coronary syndromes are yet another promising indication for DCB use [19, 20]. Especially in the setting of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, the lesion morphology (mostly short, noncalcified), patients’ clinical profiles (younger age), and prothrombotic milieu are the factors that might favor the stent-less approach [19]. Despite the theoretical advantages of DCBs in acute coronary syndromes that may be even greater than in the case of stable de novo lesions, the current evidence is limited to a few small RCTs and observational studies that warrant further trials to assess the efficacy of DCB in this setting [19, 20].

Considering the fast-developing field of the stentless approach to CAD, the working group Modern Technologies of Stents and Drug-Coated Balloons has been recently established by the Association of Cardiovascular Interventions of the Polish Cardiac Society. The main aim of this initiative is to provide evidence on DCB use, which is currently limited in most of its potential applications. To achieve this goal, the working group intends to conduct high-quality clinical research, including multicenter registries, RCTs, and meta-analyses. This will be possible thanks to building the collaboration with national and international experts. Another intention of the working group is to promote the debate on DCB by active participation in scientific meetings. What is more, the working group aims to share knowledge and expertise by organizing webinars and educational sessions dedicated to DCB during cardiology conferences. Finally, the working group’s objective is to participate in writing scientific documents (i.e., position and consensus papers) on DCB use in clinical practice.

In conclusion, DCB is an alternative to DES for treating in-stent restenosis and de novo small vessel disease. Moreover, further expansion of indications for DCB is inevitable. The most promising new field is the application of DCB in de novo large coronary vessels, bifurcation lesions and diffuse CAD. Patients at high risk of bleeding are also potential beneficiaries of DCB, especially considering increasing age of PCI recipients.

Acknowledgments

None.

Figure 1 The current and expanding applications of drug-coated balloons

Funding: Not applicable.

Conflict of interest: None declared.
==== Refs
References

1 Sabaté M Brugaletta S Cequier A The EXAMINATION trial (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction): 2-year results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014 7 1 64 71 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.09.006 24332423
2 Cortese B Kalkat H Bathia G The evolution and revolution of drug coated balloons in coronary angioplasty: An up-to-date review of literature data Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2023 102 6 1069 1077 10.1002/ccd.30891 37870079
3 Sabaté M Alfonso F Cequier A Magnesium-Based Resorbable Scaffold Versus Permanent Metallic Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The MAGSTEMI Randomized Clinical Trial Circulation 2019 140 23 1904 1916 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043467 31553204
4 Wańha W Bil J Januszek R Long-Term Outcomes Following Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Thin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents for Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis (DEB-Dragon-Registry) Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2021 14 9 e010868 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.010868 34474584
5 Giacoppo D Alfonso F Xu Bo Paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty vs. drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a comprehensive, collaborative, individual patient data meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials (DAEDALUS study) Eur Heart J 2020 41 38 3715 3728 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz594 31511862
6 Neumann F-J Sousa-Uva M Ahlsson A 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization Eur Heart J 2019 40 87 165 30165437
7 Cortese B Testa G Rivero F Long-Term Outcome of Drug-Coated Balloon vs Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessels: PICCOLETO-II 3-Year Follow-Up JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023 16 9 1054 1061 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.02.011 37164603
8 Rosenberg M Waliszewski M Krackhardt F Drug Coated Balloon-Only Strategy in De Novo Lesions of Large Coronary Vessels J Interv Cardiol 2019 2019 6548696 10.1155/2019/6548696 31772539
9 Uskela S Kärkkäinen JM Eränen J Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-coated balloon-only strategy in stable coronary artery disease and in acute coronary syndromes: An all-comers registry study Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019 93 5 893 900 10.1002/ccd.27950 30380186
10 Gitto M Sticchi A Chiarito M Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for De Novo Lesions on the Left Anterior Descending Artery Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2023 16 12 e013232 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013232 37874646
11 Costopoulos C Latib A Naganuma T The role of drug-eluting balloons alone or in combination with drug-eluting stents in the treatment of de novo diffuse coronary disease JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013 6 11 1153 1159 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.07.005 24262615
12 Yang X Lu W Pan L Long-term outcomes of drug-coated balloons in patients with diffuse coronary lesions Front Cardiovasc Med 2022 9 935263 10.3389/fcvm.2022.935263 36211569
13 Murasato Y Yamaji K Kohsaka S Percutaneous coronary intervention in side branch coronary arteries: Insights from the Japanese nationwide registry Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc 2021 36 100856 10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100856 34430704
14 Jeger RV Eccleshall S Wan Ahmad WA International DCB Consensus Group Drug-Coated Balloons for Coronary Artery Disease: Third Report of the International DCB Consensus Group JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020 13 12 1391 1402 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.02.043 32473887
15 Rathore S Tehrani S Prvulovic D Drug coated balloons and their role in bifurcation coronary angioplasty: appraisal of the current evidence and future directions Expert Rev Med Devices 2020 17 10 1021 1033 10.1080/17434440.2020.1831385 33000952
16 Palmerini T Reggiani LB Riva DD Bleeding-Related Deaths in Relation to the Duration of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2017 69 16 2011 2022 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.029 28427576
17 Généreux P Rutledge DR Palmerini T Stent Thrombosis and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Interruption With Everolimus-Eluting Stents: Insights From the Xience V Coronary Stent System Trials Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015 8 5 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001362 25940520
18 Räsänen A Kärkkäinen JM Eranti A Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-coated balloon-only strategy combined with single antiplatelet treatment in patients at high bleeding risk: Single center experience of a novel concept Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2023 101 3 569 578 10.1002/ccd.30558 36682076
19 Alfonso F Elgendy IY Cortese B Drug-coated balloons for acute myocardial infarction. Ready for prime time? EuroIntervention 2020 15 17 1479 1482 10.4244/EIJV15I17A270 32301710
20 Neghabat O Holm NR Leaving Nothing Behind in Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction: Are We There Yet? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019 12 17 1700 1702 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.05.004 31126884
