Should We Use Drug Coated Balloons in Patients with Multivessel Disease?

Recent studies have shown that a drug coated balloons (DCB) based approach resulted non inferior when compared against drug eluting stents (DES) only approach in patients with instent restenosis and de novo lesions in small vessel disease. So far, two international consensuses have reported the use of DCB is feasible and safe to treat native vessels instead of DES. 

¿Debemos utilizar balones liberadores de droga en pacientes con enfermedad de múltiples vasos?

A registry of patients in South Korea has shown that a higher number of longer stents was a significant predictor of ischemic events in patients with multivessel disease. 

The aim of this retrospective study carried out in South Korea was to look at clinical outcomes of patients with multivessel disease treated with DCB or a combination of DCB and DES. 

Primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) incidence, defined as cardiac death, AMI, stroke, probable or definite stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization and major bleeding at 2 years. 

It included 254 patients meeting multivessel criteria, treated with DCB or a combination of DCB and DES. These were matched with propensity score (PSM) to 254 patients of the PTRG-DES registry (Platelet Function and Genotype-Related Long-Term Prognosis in Drug-Eluting Stent-Treated Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) to be compared against the DES-only group. 

Read also: Intracoronary Brachytherapy for Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis.

Patient mean age was 63 and they were mostly men. The most frequent clinical presentation in the DES-only group was stable angina, while in the DCB-based group, unstable angina was most prevalent. Among DCB patients, 34.3% were treated with DCB only and 65.7% with the hybrid strategy combining DES + DCB. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics between the groups. The number of stents and total stent length was significantly lower in the DCB group vs. the DES-only group. 

As regards the primary end point, the DCB group presented lower risk of MACE vs DES-only, at 2 years. (3.9% vs 11.0%; P = 0.002).

Cardiac death was higher in the DES group (0.4% vs 2.4%; P = 0.047), and major bleeding was also more prevalent in this group (0.4% vs; 2.8%; P = 0.027). 

Conclusion

The DCB-based approach showed significantly fewer stents in multivessel PCI, which lead to reduced MACE rate at 2 year followup. These findings confirm the safety of DCB, and the long term benefit we can expect, seeing as it reduces stent burden. Further retrospective controlled studies are needed to assess the role of DCB.

Dr. Andrés Rodríguez

Dr. Andrés Rodríguez.
Member of the editorial board of SOLACI.org.

Original Title: Clinical Impact of Drug-Coated Balloon–Based Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

Reference: Eun-Seok Shin, MD et al J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2023.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

More articles by this author

Plaque Ruptures in Non-Culprit Arteries: Follow-Up With Intravascular Imaging

Plaque rupture remains one of the most important pathophysiological mechanisms in acute coronary syndromes. However, not all ruptures manifest clinically as ischemia, myocardial infarction,...

OCT-Detected High-Risk Plaques Predict Recurrent Events After Myocardial Infarction

After a myocardial infarction (MI), non-culprit lesions are often deferred when they are not flow-limiting (negative FFR). However, these lesions continue to represent an...

Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in ACS Patients Receiving DOAC After PCI: More Bleeding Without Ischemic Benefit?

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who require direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) and undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), current guidelines recommend a dual...

EuroPCR 2026 | 10-Year Left Main PCI: When Survival Is Similar, Should the Less Invasive Strategy Prevail?

The primary goal of revascularization in left main coronary artery disease (LMCA) is to improve survival. However, debate continues regarding whether, in anatomically suitable...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img
Jornadas Guatemala 2026

Recent Articles

Coronary Obstruction During TAVI: A New Volumetric Index to Consider

Coronary obstruction during TAVI is an uncommon but potentially catastrophic complication, particularly in valve-in-valve procedures, in anatomies with small sinuses of Valsalva, low coronary...

EARLY TAVR: Impact of Age on Outcomes of Early TAVR in Asymptomatic Patients

Asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis represents an increasingly common clinical challenge. Although current guidelines recommend intervention once symptoms develop or left ventricular dysfunction occurs, concerns...

Plaque Ruptures in Non-Culprit Arteries: Follow-Up With Intravascular Imaging

Plaque rupture remains one of the most important pathophysiological mechanisms in acute coronary syndromes. However, not all ruptures manifest clinically as ischemia, myocardial infarction,...