A prospective randomized trial comparing sirolimus-coated balloon with paclitaxel-coated balloon in de novo small vessels

Ninomiya, K.; Serruys, P.W.; Colombo, A.; Reimers, B.; Basavarajaiah, S.; Sharif, F.; Testa, L.; Mario, C. di; Nerla, R.; Ding, D.X.; Huang, J.Y.; Kotoku, N.; Kageyama, S.; Kageyama, M.; Sevestre, E.; Fezzi, S.; Dijkstra, J.; O'Leary, N.; Morel, M.A.; Garg, S.; Cortese, B.; Onuma, Y.

doi:doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2023.09.026

BACKGROUND There are no data comparing sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs [MagicTouch, Concept Medical]) to paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs [SeQuent Please Neo, B. Braun]) for the treatment of de novo small vessel disease (SVD).OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare quantitative coronary angiographic outcomes at 6 months after treatment of de novo SVD with a PCB or SCB.METHODS This prospective, multicenter, noninferiority trial randomized 121 patients (129 SVD lesions) to treatment with an SCB or PCB, with balloon sizing determined using optical coherence tomography. The primary endpoint was noninferiority for the 6-month angiographic net lumen gain.RESULTS Angiographic follow-up was completed in 109 (90.1%) patients in the per-protocol analysis. The mean +/- SD angiographic net gains were 0.25 +/- 0.40 mm with SCBs vs 0.48 +/- 0.37 mm with PCBs, resulting in SCBs failing to meet the 0.30 mm criterion for noninferiority (P-noninferiority = 0.173), with an absolute difference of -0.23...Show moreBACKGROUND There are no data comparing sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs [MagicTouch, Concept Medical]) to paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs [SeQuent Please Neo, B. Braun]) for the treatment of de novo small vessel disease (SVD).OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare quantitative coronary angiographic outcomes at 6 months after treatment of de novo SVD with a PCB or SCB.METHODS This prospective, multicenter, noninferiority trial randomized 121 patients (129 SVD lesions) to treatment with an SCB or PCB, with balloon sizing determined using optical coherence tomography. The primary endpoint was noninferiority for the 6-month angiographic net lumen gain.RESULTS Angiographic follow-up was completed in 109 (90.1%) patients in the per-protocol analysis. The mean +/- SD angiographic net gains were 0.25 +/- 0.40 mm with SCBs vs 0.48 +/- 0.37 mm with PCBs, resulting in SCBs failing to meet the 0.30 mm criterion for noninferiority (P-noninferiority = 0.173), with an absolute difference of -0.23 mm (95% CI: -0.37 to -0.09) secondary to a smaller late loss (0.00 +/- 0.32 mm vs 0.32 +/- 0.47 mm; P < 0.001) and more frequent late lumen enlargement (53.7% vs 30.0%; OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.22-5.67; P = 0.014) with PCBs. Binary restenosis rates were 32.8% and 12.5% following treatment with SCBs and PCBs, respectively (OR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.36-9.44; P = 0.012). The mean angiography-derived fractional flow ratio at follow-up was 0.86 +/- 0.15 following treatment with SCBs and 0.91 +/- 0.09 following PCBs (P = 0.026); a fractional flow ratio <= 0.80 occurred in 13 and 5 vessels after treatment with SCBs and PCBs, respectively.CONCLUSIONS The SCB MagicTouch failed to demonstrate noninferiority for angiographic net lumen gain at 6 months compared to the PCB SeQuent Please Neo.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

A prospective randomized trial comparing sirolimus-coated balloon with paclitaxel-coated balloon in de novo small vessels