Key result
Paclitaxel-coated balloons yield similar recurrent restenosis rates to paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary in-stent restenosis.
Why the study?
This study aimed to provide a pooled comparison of paclitaxel-coated balloons and paclitaxel-eluting stents regarding efficacy and safety in treating coronary in-stent restenosis.
Does paclitaxel-coated balloon reduce restenosis compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis?
Meta-Analysis (n=734)
Does paclitaxel-coated balloon reduce restenosis compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis?
Relative Risk: 0.76 (95% CI 0.19–2.99)
Absolute Event Rate: 20.6% vs 23.7%
Paclitaxel-coated balloons offer a viable, stent-free alternative to paclitaxel-eluting stents with comparable angiographic and clinical outcomes for coronary in-stent restenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports paclitaxel-coated balloons as a stent-free option for coronary in-stent restenosis; confirms comparable restenosis rates to paclitaxel-eluting stents.
Ahmed et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary in-stent restenosis (n=734). Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) vs. Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) was evaluated on Recurrent binary restenosis (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.99). Paclitaxel-coated balloons resulted in comparable rates of recurrent binary restenosis compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents (20.6% vs 23.7%; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.19-2.99) for coronary in-stent restenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: