Paclitaxel-(PCB) and sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) are used for treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and de novo (DN) lesions. Studies comparing major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after PCB versus SCB are limited.

Aims

This study aims to contribute to this knowledge gap and enhance the understanding of optimal strategies for treating ISR and DN lesions.

Methods

EASTBOURNE and PEARL are large-scale, prospective clinical registries, evaluating the performance of drug-coated balloons. PEARL included patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using Protege PCB and EASTBOURNE included patients treated with MagicTouch SCB in study centers in Europe and Asia. We combined these registries and used logistic regression analysis to assess the association between SCB/PCB and the likelihood of experiencing MACE, a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and target-lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1-year follow-up.

Results

Out of 2596 patients, MACE was observed more frequently in ISR lesions (n = 1292 patients, SCB:17.8% vs. PCB:14.1%, p = 0.12) versus DN lesions (n = 1304 patients, SCB:6.4% vs. PCB:6.1%, p = 1.00). The adjusted hazards ratio (HR) for MACE was 1.17 (95% CI: 0.59–1.23, p = 0.40). As regards DN lesions, no significant difference was found in MACE (SCB: 6.4% vs. PCB 6.1%, p = 1.00). The adjusted HR for MACE was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.20–2.01, p = 0.13). There were no differences in the individual components of the primary endpoint.

Conclusions

This real-world comparison demonstrated comparable outcomes between new-generation PCB and SCB in terms of MACE at 1-year follow-up, across different lesion settings.

Conflicts of Interest

Dr Cortese serves as Advisory Board member for Concept Medical. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Supporting Information

References

1B. Cortese, D. Pellegrini, R. A. Latini, G. Di Palma, A. Perotto, and P. S. Orrego, “Angiographic Performance of a Novel Sirolimus-Coated Balloon in Native Coronary Lesions: The Fatebenefratelli Sirolimus Coated Natives Prospective Registry,” Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine 20, no. 7 (2019): 471–476.
10.2459/JCM.0000000000000806
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2A. Kastrati, A. Dibra, S. Eberle, et al., “Sirolimus-Eluting Stents vs Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials,” Journal of the American Medical Association 294, no. 7 (2005): 819–825.
10.1001/jama.294.7.819
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
3H. S. Gurm, T. Boyden, and K. B. Welch, “Comparative Safety and Efficacy of a Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent: A Meta-Analysis,” American Heart Journal 155, no. 4 (2008): 630–639.
10.1016/j.ahj.2007.11.021
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4B. Cortese, G. Caiazzo, G. Di Palma, and S. De Rosa, “Comparison Between Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for Revascularization of Coronary Arteries: The SIRPAC (SIRolimus-PAClitaxel) Study,” Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine 28 (2021): 1–6.
10.1016/j.carrev.2021.04.013
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5B. Cortese, L. Testa, T. M. Heang, et al., “Sirolimus-Coated Balloon in an All-Comer Population of Coronary Artery Disease Patients,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 16, no. 14 (2023): 1794–1803.
10.1016/j.jcin.2023.05.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6F. L. Gurgoglione, D. Gattuso, A. Greco, D. Donelli, G. Niccoli, and B. Cortese, “Angiographic and Clinical Impact of Balloon Inflation Time in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions With Sirolimus-Coated Balloon: A Subanalysis of the Eastbourne Study,” Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine: Including Molecular Interventions 24 (2024): S1553.
Google Scholar
7K. Katsanos, S. Spiliopoulos, P. Kitrou, M. Krokidis, and D. Karnabatidis, “Risk of Death Following Application of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons and Stents in the Femoropopliteal Artery of the Leg: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials,” Journal of the American Heart Association 7, no. 24 (2018): e011245.
10.1161/JAHA.118.011245
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8J. A. Bittl, Y. He, U. Baber, R. L. Feldman, G. O. von Mering, and S. Kaul, “Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of the Mortality Claim for Peripheral Paclitaxel-Eluting Devices,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 12, no. 24 (2019): 2528–2537.
10.1016/j.jcin.2019.09.028
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Y. Chen, Y. Zeng, X. Zhu, et al., “Significant Difference Between Sirolimus and Paclitaxel Nanoparticles in Anti-Proliferation Effect in Normoxia and Hypoxia: The Basis of Better Selection of Atherosclerosis Treatment,” Bioactive Materials 6, no. 3 (2021): 880–889.
10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.09.005
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10R. M. Ali, M. A. S. K. Abdul Kader, W. A. Wan Ahmad, et al., “Treatment of Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus- or Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 12, no. 6 (2019): 558–566.
10.1016/j.jcin.2018.11.040
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11B. Scheller, N. Mangner, R. V. Jeger, et al., “A Randomised Trial of Sirolimus- Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Lesions,” EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration With the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 20, no. 21 (2024): 1322.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
12H. Liu, Y. Li, and G. Fu, et al, “Sirolimus- vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: The SIBLINT-ISR Randomized Trial,” JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 24 (2025): S1936.
Google Scholar
13D. Shin, M. Singh, E. Shlofmitz, et al., “Paclitaxel-Coated Versus Sirolimus-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 104, no. 3 (2024): 425–436.
10.1002/ccd.31154
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14W. A. W. Ahmad, A. A. Nuruddin, M. A. S. Abdul Kader, et al., “Treatment of Coronary De Novo Lesions by a Sirolimus- or Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 15, no. 7 (2022): 770–779.
10.1016/j.jcin.2022.01.012
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15B. Scheller, N. Mangner, M. A. S. K. Abdul Kader, et al., “Combined Analysis of Two Parallel Randomized Trials of Sirolimus-Coated and Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons in Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Lesions,” Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions 15, no. 9 (2022): e012305.
10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.122.012305
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16K. Ninomiya, P. W. Serruys, A. Colombo, et al., “A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Sirolimus-Coated Balloon With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon in De Novo Small Vessels,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 16, no. 23 (2023): 2884–2896.
10.1016/j.jcin.2023.09.026
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17A. Tanaka, A. Latib, R. J. Jabbour, et al., “Impact of Angiographic Result After Predilatation on Outcome After Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment of In-Stent Coronary Restenosis,” American Journal of Cardiology 118, no. 10 (2016): 1460–1465.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.006
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18S. Basavarajaiah, H. Kalkat, G. Bhatia, and B. Cortese, “How to Perform a Successful Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty? Tips and Tricks,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 102, no. 7 (2023): 1238–1257.
10.1002/ccd.30851
PubMed Google Scholar
19F. L. Gurgoglione, M. De Gregorio, G. Benatti, et al., “Paclitaxel-Coated Versus Sirolimus-Coated Eluting Balloons for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Pharmacodynamic Properties, Clinical Evidence, and Future Perspectives,” Future Pharmacology 4, no. 4 (2024): 775–787.
10.3390/futurepharmacol4040041
Web of Science® Google Scholar
20W. Wanha, S. Iwanczyk, and B. Cortese, “Drug-Coated Balloons on the ‘Big Stage’: Is This Technology Ready for An All-Comer Population With De Novo Lesions?,” REC Interventional Cardiology 6 (2024): 266–268.
Google Scholar
21S. Vlieger, J. Cheng, R. Oemrawsingh, et al., “Clinical Performance of a Paclitaxel Drug-Coated Balloon in Real-World Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Practice: The PEARL Registry,” Journal of Invasive Cardiology 34, no. 6 (2022): E462–E468.
10.25270/jic/21.00339
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Volume106, Issue1

July 1, 2025

Pages 625-632

SCAI Member Sign in

Filename	Description
ccd31587-sup-0001-Supplementary_Table_1.docx20.6 KB	Supplementary Table 1.
ccd31587-sup-0002-Supplementary_Table_2.docx20.6 KB	Supplementary Table 2.

Comparison of Sirolimus—Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons in Coronary Artery Disease: One-Year Results of Two Real-World Prospective Registries

ABSTRACT

Background

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

Supporting Information

References

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Comparison of Sirolimus—Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons in Coronary Artery Disease: One-Year Results of Two Real-World Prospective Registries

ABSTRACT

Background

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

Supporting Information

References

References

Related

Information