Paclitaxel- Versus Sirolimus-Coated Balloons in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Drug-coated balloons are a cornerstone of a "leave nothing behind" strategy in percutaneous coronary intervention. While paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) are established, sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) represent a newer alternative. This meta-analysis integrates the latest evidence to compare the efficacy and safety of SCBs versus PCBs for coronary artery disease. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, prospectively registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251157954). We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial through September 2025 for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing PCB-only with SCB-only percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary clinical outcome was target lesion failure at 12 months. Key angiographic outcomes included in-segment late lumen loss, minimal lumen diameter, and diameter stenosis (DS). Fourteen studies (8 randomized controlled trials and 6 observational) with 6420 patients were included (PCB: n = 2042; SCB: n = 4378). The risk of target lesion failure was comparable between SCBs and PCBs [8.5% vs 9.2%; odds ratio 0.86, 95% (confidence interval) CI 0.71-1.05; P = 0.15], with no differences in its individual components. However, PCBs demonstrated superior angiographic outcomes, with significantly lower late lumen loss [Mean Difference (MD) -0.09 mm, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.01; P = 0.02] and larger minimal lumen diameter (MD 0.08 mm, 95% CI 0.01-0.14; P = 0.02). The reduction in DS with PCBs was not statistically significant (MD -2.11%, 95% CI -4.75 to 0.52; P = 0.12). This angiographic advantage was primarily driven by comparisons with the phospholipid-encapsulated SCB (MagicTouch). SCBs and PCBs demonstrate comparable clinical safety and efficacy at 1-year follow-up. Despite this, PCBs maintain an angiographic advantage, which is significantly influenced by the specific SCB excipient technology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cardiology in Review
Published
2026-01-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/crd.0000000000001158
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

Paclitaxel- Versus Sirolimus-Coated Balloons in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

M. Sai Ram, FNU Sahil, Husnain Ali, Muhammad Bashir Ibrahim et al.
Cardiology in Review
Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
article

Paclitaxel- Versus Sirolimus-Coated Balloons in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

M. Sai Ram, FNU Sahil, Husnain Ali, Muhammad Bashir Ibrahim, Malik Aqeel Ahmad, Aysha Khalid, Muddassir Khalid, Christian Cortes Armijo, Ayesha Mansoor
article en

Abstract

Drug-coated balloons are a cornerstone of a "leave nothing behind" strategy in percutaneous coronary intervention. While paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) are established, sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) represent a newer alternative. This meta-analysis integrates the latest evidence to compare the efficacy and safety of SCBs versus PCBs for coronary artery disease. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, prospectively registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251157954). We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial through September 2025 for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing PCB-only with SCB-only percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary clinical outcome was target lesion failure at 12 months. Key angiographic outcomes included in-segment late lumen loss, minimal lumen diameter, and diameter stenosis (DS). Fourteen studies (8 randomized controlled trials and 6 observational) with 6420 patients were included (PCB: n = 2042; SCB: n = 4378). The risk of target lesion failure was comparable between SCBs and PCBs [8.5% vs 9.2%; odds ratio 0.86, 95% (confidence interval) CI 0.71-1.05; P = 0.15], with no differences in its individual components. However, PCBs demonstrated superior angiographic outcomes, with significantly lower late lumen loss [Mean Difference (MD) -0.09 mm, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.01; P = 0.02] and larger minimal lumen diameter (MD 0.08 mm, 95% CI 0.01-0.14; P = 0.02). The reduction in DS with PCBs was not statistically significant (MD -2.11%, 95% CI -4.75 to 0.52; P = 0.12). This angiographic advantage was primarily driven by comparisons with the phospholipid-encapsulated SCB (MagicTouch). SCBs and PCBs demonstrate comparable clinical safety and efficacy at 1-year follow-up. Despite this, PCBs maintain an angiographic advantage, which is significantly influenced by the specific SCB excipient technology.

Cardiology in Review
Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences (PK), Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (MX), Punjab Medical College (PK), Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University (PK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 96%
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.