Key result
Sirolimus-coated balloons show no difference in late lumen loss compared to paclitaxel-coated balloons in CAD.
Why the study?
Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) and sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) are valuable alternatives to drug-eluting stents for coronary artery interventions, prompting a comparison of their efficacy and safety in patients with coronary artery disease.
Does a sirolimus-coated balloon catheter improve late lumen loss and clinical outcomes compared to a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter in patients with coronary artery disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,043)
Randomized controlled trials included
Yes
Does a sirolimus-coated balloon catheter improve late lumen loss and clinical outcomes compared to a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter in patients with coronary artery disease?
Sirolimus-coated and paclitaxel-coated balloons demonstrate comparable overall safety and clinical efficacy in coronary artery interventions, although paclitaxel-coated balloons show advantages in late lumen enlargement and lower binary restenosis in de novo lesions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Sirolimus-coated balloons match paclitaxel-coated for late lumen loss; confirms comparable angiographic performance and supports expanded drug-coated balloon options pending outcome data.
Background and aim Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are a key alternative to drug-eluting stents for coronary artery interventions, offering the advantage of drug delivery without permanent implants. Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) and sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) are valuable treatment options. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-coated versus paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines, searching five databases. We exclusively included RCTs. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models, with sensitivity analysis performed in cases of heterogeneity. Results Eight trials involving 1043 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between SCB and PCB for late lumen loss (MD 0.06, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.14]). Only two outcomes showed statistically significant differences favoring PCB: reducing late lumen enlargement (RR 0.66, 95% CI [0.49–0.87], P = 0.004) and, after sensitivity analysis, lowering binary restenosis rates in de novo lesions Conclusion This meta-analysis shows SCB and PCB have similar safety and efficacy in coronary artery interventions, with no significant differences in most outcomes. However, PCB outperforms late lumen enlargement and binary restenosis rates in de novo lesions. Similar outcomes across sirolimus formulations indicate other factors influence success. Both balloon types appear safe and effective, though PCB may retain certain advantages in specific scenarios. Larger, longer-term studies are needed to establish the optimal drug-coated balloon strategy for different patient populations. Clinical trial number: not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ibraheem et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease (de novo lesions, in-stent restenosis, and bifurcation lesions) (n=1,043). Sirolimus-coated balloon catheter vs. Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter (3 mg/mm² or 3 µg/mm²) was evaluated on Late lumen loss (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.14, p=0.16). Sirolimus-coated balloons showed no significant difference in late lumen loss compared to paclitaxel-coated balloons (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.14, P=0.16) in coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: