Why the study?
Drug-coated balloon-based strategies are increasingly explored to reduce permanent metal burden compared with drug-eluting stents, but real-world data on their utilization and safety in ACS remain limited.
Does a drug-coated balloon-based PCI strategy result in comparable 1-year all-cause mortality compared to a drug-eluting stent-only strategy in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Observational (n=2,684)
No
Does a drug-coated balloon-based PCI strategy result in comparable 1-year all-cause mortality compared to a drug-eluting stent-only strategy in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
In a real-world ACS registry, a drug-coated balloon-based PCI strategy demonstrated comparable early and 1-year all-cause mortality to a drug-eluting stent-only strategy, supporting lesion-tailored approaches to minimize permanent metal implantation.
Background Drug-coated balloon (DCB)-based strategies are increasingly explored as an alternative or adjunct to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation to reduce permanent metal burden. However, real-world data on the utilization and safety of DCB-based strategies in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain limited. Purpose To evaluate real-world utilization and clinical outcomes of a DCB-based strategy compared with DES in patients undergoing PCI for ACS. Methods We performed a retrospective registry analysis of consecutive patients treated with PCI for ACS at a tertiary centre. Patients were stratified by revascularization strategy: DES-only versus DCB-based (DCB-only or hybrid approach). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary events, ACS presentation (ST-elevation myocardial infarction vs non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina), coronary complexity (SYNTAX score), and cardiogenic shock. Safety outcomes included in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Results A total of 2,684 patients were included, of whom 239 (8.9%) underwent a DCB-based strategy. Compared with DES-treated patients, those receiving a DCB-based strategy more frequently had diabetes (30.1% vs 22.6%, p=0.008), NSTEMI/unstable angina (59.8% vs 37.1%, p<0.001), prior myocardial infarction (23.4% vs 10.9%, p<0.001), and bifurcation lesions (15.3% vs 5.0%, p<0.001). Rates of complete revascularization were comparable between strategies (61.9% vs 59.1%, p=0.417). One-year mortality was 5.9% in the DCB-based group and 7.1% in the DES group (p=0.503). After adjustment, a DCB-based strategy was not associated with higher 1-year mortality compared with DES (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.56-2.09, p=0.81). Age, coronary complexity (SYNTAX score), and cardiogenic shock were independent predictors of mortality. There were no significant differences between DCB-based and DES strategies in in-hospital mortality (3.3% vs 3.1%, p=0.844) or 30-day mortality (4.6% vs 4.1%, p=0.718). Conclusion In this real-world ACS registry, a DCB-based, metal-minimizing revascularization strategy demonstrated comparable early and 1-year mortality to DES. These findings support lesion-tailored PCI strategies that minimize permanent metal implantation in contemporary ACS management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rode et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n=2,684). Drug-coated balloon (DCB)-based PCI strategy (DCB-only or hybrid approach) vs. Drug-eluting stent (DES)-only strategy was evaluated on All-cause mortality at 1 year (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.56-2.09, p=0.81).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: