Background-Treatment of in-stent restenosis with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter as compared with plain balloon angioplasty has shown surprisingly low late lumen loss at 6 months and fewer major adverse cardiac events up to 2 years. We compared the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent as the current standard of care. Methods and Results-One hundred thirty-one patients with coronary in-stent restenosis were randomly assigned to treatment by a paclitaxel-coated balloon (3 g/mm 2 ) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent. The main inclusion criteria encompassed diameter stenosis of Ն70% and Յ22 mm in length, with a vessel diameter of 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The primary end point was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. At 6 months follow-up, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.38Ϯ0.61 mm in the drug-eluting stent group versus 0.17Ϯ0.42 mm (Pϭ0.03) in the drug-coated balloon group, resulting in a binary restenosis rate of 12 of 59 (20%) versus 4 of 57 (7%; Pϭ0.06). At 12 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events were 22% and 9%, respectively (Pϭ0.08). This difference was primarily due to the need for target lesion revascularization in 4 patients (6%) in the coated-balloon group, compared with 10 patients (15%) in the stent group (Pϭ0.15). Conclusions-Treatment

Treatment of coronary stenosis in small coronary vessels with the paclitaxel-coated balloon was well tolerated. It may offer an alternative to the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00404144).

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00288483.

Aims Consensus is lacking regarding the best treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). The two most effective treatments are angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) and repeat stenting with drug-eluting stent (DES) but individual trials were not statistically powered for clinical endpoints, results were heterogeneous, and evidence about comparative efficacy and safety in relevant subsets was limited. Methods and results The Difference in Anti-restenotic Effectiveness of Drug-eluting stent and drug-coated balloon AngiopLasty for the occUrrence of coronary in-Stent restenosis (DAEDALUS) study was a comprehensive, investigator-initiated, collaborative, individual patient data meta-analysis comparing angioplasty with PCB alone vs. repeat stenting with DES alone for the treatment of coronary ISR. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017075007). All 10 available randomized clinical trials were included with 1976 patients enrolled, 1033 assigned to PCB and 943 to DES. At 3-year follow-up, PCB was associated with a significant increase in the risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared with DES [hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% CI 1.02–1.70, P = 0.035; number-needed-to-harm 28.5]. There was a significant interaction between treatment effect and type of restenosed stent (P = 0.029) with a more marked difference in patients with DES-ISR and comparable effects in patients with bare-metal stent-ISR. At 3-year follow-up, the primary safety endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis was comparable between treatments (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58–1.09, P = 0.152). A pre-specified subgroup analysis indicated a significant interaction between treatment effect and type of DES used to treat ISR (P = 0.033), with a lower incidence of events associated with PCB compared with first-generation DES and similar effect between PCB and second-generation DES (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71–1.60, P = 0.764). Long-term all-cause mortality was similar between PCB and DES (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53–1.22, P = 0.310); results were consistent comparing PCB and non-paclitaxel-based DES (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.80–2.54, P = 0.235). Myocardial infarction and target lesion thrombosis were comparable between treatments. Conclusions In patients with coronary ISR, repeat stenting with DES is moderately more effective than angioplasty with PCB at reducing the need for TLR at 3 years. The incidence of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis was similar between groups. The rates of individual endpoints, including all-cause mortality, were not significantly different between groups.

In bifurcation lesions that show only class A or B dissection and recoil not beyond 30 % the use of DCBs is a sound strategy.

No abstract

Treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease with a paclitaxel-iopromide-coated balloon exhibited good six-month angiographic and one-year clinical data that persisted during the three-year follow-up period. Randomised trials will clarify its role as an alternative to drug-eluting stents in the treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00404144).

The six-month superiority of the paclitaxel-coated balloon compared to the paclitaxel-eluting stent in the treatment of bare metal coronary in-stent restenosis persisted throughout the three-year clinical follow-up period indicating stability of the lesions treated. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00393315).