Key result
In patients undergoing drug-coated balloon PCI, diffuse coronary artery disease was associated with more ischemic physiology at 5 months compared to focal disease (29.7% vs 11.5%; P=0.01).
Why the study?
Diffuse coronary artery disease challenges stent-based PCI, and the physiological response to drug-coated balloons in focal compared with diffuse disease remains unclear.
Does the physiological pattern of coronary artery disease (diffuse vs focal) impact angiographic and physiological outcomes after drug-coated balloon PCI?
Cohort (n=230)
Yes
Does the physiological pattern of coronary artery disease (diffuse vs focal) impact angiographic and physiological outcomes after drug-coated balloon PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 29.7% vs 11.5%
p-value: p=0.01
Diffuse coronary artery disease is associated with smaller acute physiological gain and more suboptimal post-PCI physiology after drug-coated balloon treatment compared to focal disease, highlighting the need for optimal acute results in diffuse lesions.
Physiological patterns may influence DCB-PCI results in de novo lesions; leaves open optimal strategy for diffuse disease.
BACKGROUND: Diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD) challenges stent-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) offer a stentless strategy, but the physiological response in focal compared with diffuse disease remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate the impact of physiological patterns on angiographic and physiological outcomes after DCB-PCI. METHODS: In this international cohort, patients underwent DCB-PCI for de novo lesions with angiographic follow-up at 5 months (IQR: 3-7). Quantitative coronary angiography and Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR) were analyzed by a core laboratory. Virtual μFR pull backs generated the pull back pressure gradient index (PPGi), classifying disease as focal (PPGi ≥0.78) or diffuse (PPGi <0.78). RESULTS: Among 230 patients/lesions, 139 of 230 (60.4%) were focal and 91 of 230 (39.6%) diffuse. Baseline μFR was comparable between diffuse and focal disease (0.64 [0.45-0.80] vs 0.61 [0.32-0.79]; P = 0.21). After PCI, diffuse disease showed lower acute functional gain (ΔμFR 0.23 [0.09-0.36] vs 0.29 [0.12-0.51]; P = 0.03), lower post-PCI μFR (0.89 [0.82-0.93] vs 0.91 [0.86-0.94]; P = 0.03), and more suboptimal physiology (19 of 91, 20.9% vs 12 of 139, 8.6%; P = 0.01). At follow-up, late functional loss was minimal and similar (+0.01 [-0.04 to 0.06] vs -0.01 [-0.04 to 0.04]; P = 0.53), yet diffuse CAD maintained lower μFR (0.88 [0.78-0.93] vs 0.91 [0.85-0.95]; P = 0.03) and more ischemic physiology (27 of 91, 29.7% vs 16 of 139, 11.5%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PPGi stratifies outcomes after DCB-PCI: diffuse CAD shows smaller acute μFR gain and more suboptimal post-PCI physiology, despite minimal late angiographic and functional loss, highlighting the importance of optimal acute physiological results, particularly in diffuse disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fezzi et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease (n=230). Diffuse coronary artery disease (PPGi <0.78) vs. Focal coronary artery disease (PPGi ≥0.78) was evaluated on Ischemic physiology at follow-up (p=0.01). In patients undergoing drug-coated balloon PCI, diffuse coronary artery disease was associated with more ischemic physiology at 5 months compared to focal disease (29.7% vs 11.5%; P=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: