Drug-coated balloons in coronary disease: meta-analysis comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-coated technologies.
Mohammedrashid Ibraheem, Aly Abouslima, Ahmed Ebrahim et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) for coronary interventions. It included eight randomised trials involving 1043 patients with coronary artery disease. Late lumen loss did not differ significantly between balloon types (MD 0.06, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.14]), and the authors reported similar safety and efficacy across most outcomes. Two outcomes favoured PCB: less late lumen enlargement and, after sensitivity analysis, lower binary restenosis rates in de novo lesions. The authors call for larger, longer-term studies to clarify the optimal strategy.
Key findings
- Across eight trials and 1043 patients, late lumen loss was similar with SCB and PCB (MD 0.06, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.14]).
- PCB reduced late lumen enlargement compared with SCB (RR 0.66, 95% CI [0.49-0.87], P = 0.004).
- After sensitivity analysis, binary restenosis rates in de novo lesions favoured PCB; the abstract provides no effect estimate.
Why it matters
The comparison addresses whether the drug coating on a coronary balloon is associated with different outcomes. The overall similarity suggests neither technology showed broad superiority in this analysis, while the reported PCB advantages in selected outcomes may be relevant when interpreting evidence for specific lesion settings. The findings also highlight uncertainty that larger, longer-term trials may help resolve.
What to keep in mind
The analysis included eight trials and 1043 patients; the abstract notes that larger, longer-term studies are needed. The binary restenosis finding followed sensitivity analysis, and no effect estimate is provided.