Coronary disease & ACSMeta-analysis

Outcomes With Limus- vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

JACC Cardiovasc IntervPublished

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
  • random effects model
  • Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane searched through January 2024

Authors' conclusion

Among patients undergoing DCB-only PCI, there were no differences in the risk of clinically driven TLR and other clinical outcomes between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs. However, paclitaxel DCBs were associated with better late angiographic outcomes.

Study context

Population
Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-coated balloons
Participants
821 patients · 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Comparison
Limus DCB vs paclitaxel DCB
  • Limus DCBn = 446
  • Paclitaxel DCBn = 375reference
Outcome
Clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)
Follow-up
Mean of 13.4 months

Pooled result

TLR

Relative risk

1.32

95% CI 0.84–2.08

By group

Limus DCB vs Paclitaxel DCB
RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.84–2.08)

As reported in the abstract

Further pooled results

OutcomeLimus DCBPaclitaxel DCBRR (95% CI)
Binary restenosis · late follow-up1.89 (1.14–3.12)
Late lumen enlargement · more frequent with paclitaxel DCBs27.5%50%0.59 (0.45–0.77)
Outcomemean difference (95% CI)
Late lumen loss · late follow-up0.16 (0.03–0.28)
Minimum lumen diameter · late follow-up−0.12 (−0.22 to −0.02)

Target lesion revascularization (TLR), de novo lesions vs in-stent restenosis (subgroup)

No significant interaction
P for interaction = 0.58

MACE, cardiac mortality, target vessel MI

No differences between groups

Original publication

Outcomes With Limus- vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 8 July 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.04.042

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it