Key result
Limus-coated balloons match paclitaxel-coated balloons for in-stent restenosis but show heterogeneous de novo lesion efficacy.
Why the study?
While paclitaxel-coated balloons are widely accepted for managing in-stent restenosis, sirolimus-coated balloons have emerged as a potentially less risky alternative with a cytostatic mode of action.
Do limus-coated balloons provide comparable safety and efficacy to paclitaxel-coated balloons in patients undergoing coronary interventions for ISR, SVD, and bifurcation lesions?
Do limus-coated balloons provide comparable safety and efficacy to paclitaxel-coated balloons in patients undergoing coronary interventions for ISR, SVD, and bifurcation lesions?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.26% vs 0.25%
Both paclitaxel and sirolimus-based drug-coated balloons are effective for in-stent restenosis, but clinical performance is device-specific and PCBs currently have more consistent evidence for de novo lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sirolimus-coated balloons appear comparable in ISR; leaves open device-specific efficacy across de novo lesions.
Tsiamis et al. (2026) conducted a review in In-stent restenosis, de novo small vessel disease, and bifurcation lesions. Limus-coated balloons (sirolimus/biolimus) vs. Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) was evaluated on Late lumen loss (LLL) in in-stent restenosis. Limus-coated balloons were non-inferior to paclitaxel-coated balloons for in-stent restenosis (late lumen loss 0.26 mm vs 0.25 mm), but showed heterogeneous efficacy in de novo lesions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: