Abstract 4370610: Sirolimus Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Coronary Artery In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Background: While sirolimus-based drug-eluting stents have shown better outcomes than paclitaxel-based stents, it remains unclear whether the same advantage exists when these agents are delivered via drug-coated balloons (DCBs). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) versus paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SCB and PCB in the treatment of coronary in-sent restenosis (ISR). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) was also performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings. Results: Four RCTs, including a total of 503 patients, were analyzed, of whom 252 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SCB. There was no significant difference between SCB and PCB in the risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.73 – 1.63, P=0.68), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.67 – 1.59, P=0.88), cardiovascular death (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.12 – 3.22, P=0.58), stent thrombosis (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.16 – 7.04, P=0.96), or myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.35 – 4.65, P=0.71), as shown in Figure 1A. TSA indicated that, although the required information size was not reached, the current evidence shows a stable trend, suggesting that future studies are unlikely to alter the finding of no significant difference between groups in TLR (Figure 1B). Conclusion: This meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates no significant difference in clinical outcomes between SCB and PCB angioplasty for coronary ISR. Both DCB types appear to offer comparable efficacy and safety profiles.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4370610
Primary Topic
Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4370610: Sirolimus Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Coronary Artery In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Robert Alcântara, Pedro Lucas Alves Alencar, Vinícius Martins Rodrigues Oliveira, Yacin Zawam
Circulation
Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
article

Abstract 4370610: Sirolimus Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Coronary Artery In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Robert Alcântara, Pedro Lucas Alves Alencar, Vinícius Martins Rodrigues Oliveira, Yacin Zawam
article en

Abstract

Background: While sirolimus-based drug-eluting stents have shown better outcomes than paclitaxel-based stents, it remains unclear whether the same advantage exists when these agents are delivered via drug-coated balloons (DCBs). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) versus paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SCB and PCB in the treatment of coronary in-sent restenosis (ISR). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) was also performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings. Results: Four RCTs, including a total of 503 patients, were analyzed, of whom 252 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SCB. There was no significant difference between SCB and PCB in the risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.73 – 1.63, P=0.68), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.67 – 1.59, P=0.88), cardiovascular death (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.12 – 3.22, P=0.58), stent thrombosis (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.16 – 7.04, P=0.96), or myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.35 – 4.65, P=0.71), as shown in Figure 1A. TSA indicated that, although the required information size was not reached, the current evidence shows a stable trend, suggesting that future studies are unlikely to alter the finding of no significant difference between groups in TLR (Figure 1B). Conclusion: This meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates no significant difference in clinical outcomes between SCB and PCB angioplasty for coronary ISR. Both DCB types appear to offer comparable efficacy and safety profiles.

CirculationVol. 152(Suppl_3)
Fundação de Apoio a Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás (BR), Universidade Salgado de Oliveira (BR), Southern Ohio Medical Center (US), Universidade Federal de Goiás (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.