In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered the gold standard of care for revascularization. By reducing neointimal hyperplasia, drug-eluting coronary stents decrease the need for repeat revascularizations compared with conventional coronary stents without an antiproliferative drug coating. It is important to note that early-generation DESs were associated with an increased risk of very late stent thrombosis, most likely due to delayed endothelialization or a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the polymer. Studies have shown a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis with developing second-generation DESs with biocompatible and biodegradable polymers or without polymers altogether. In addition, research has indicated that thinner struts are associated with a reduced risk of intrastent restenosis and angiographic and clinical results. A DES with ultrathin struts (strut thickness of 70 µm) is more flexible, facilitates better tracking, and is more crossable than a conventional second-generation DES. The question is whether ultrathin eluting drug stents suit all kinds of lesions. Several authors have reported that improved coverage with less thrombus protrusion reduced the risk of distal embolization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Others have described that an ultrathin stent might recoil due to low radial strength. This could lead to residual stenosis and repeated revascularization of the artery. In CTO patients, the ultrathin stent failed to prove non-inferiority regarding in-segment late lumen loss and showed statistically higher rates of restenosis. Ultrathin-strut DESs with biodegradable polymers have limitations when treating calcified (or ostial) lesions and CTOs. However, they also possess certain advantages regarding deliverability (tight stenosis, tortuous lesions, high angulation, etc.), ease of use in bifurcation lesions, better endothelialization and vascular healing, and reducing stent thrombosis risk. In light of this, ultrathin-strut stents present a promising alternative to existing DESs of the second and third generation. The aims of the study are to compare ultrathin eluting stents with second- and third-generation conventional stents regarding procedural performance and outcomes based on different lesion types and specific populations.

Due to technological advancements during the past 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) have significantly improved the treatment of symptomatic and severe aortic stenosis, significantly improving patient outcomes. The continuous evolution of transcatheter valve models, refined imaging planning for enhanced accuracy, and the growing expertise of technicians have collectively contributed to increased safety and procedural success over time. These notable advancements have expanded the scope of TAVR to include patients with lower risk profiles as it has consistently demonstrated more favorable outcomes than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). As the field progresses, coronary angiography is anticipated to become increasingly prevalent among patients who have previously undergone TAVR, particularly in younger cohorts. It is worth noting that aortic stenosis is often associated with coronary artery disease. While the task of re-accessing coronary artery access following TAVR is challenging, it is generally feasible. In the context of valve-in-valve procedures, several crucial factors must be carefully considered to optimize coronary re-access. To obtain successful coronary re-access, it is essential to align the prosthesis with the native coronary ostia. As part of preventive measures, strategies have been developed to safeguard against coronary obstruction during TAVR. One such approach involves placing wires and non-deployed coronary balloons or scaffolds inside an at-risk coronary artery, a procedure known as chimney stenting. Additionally, the bioprosthetic or native aortic scallops intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) procedure offers an effective and safer alternative to prevent coronary artery obstructions. The key objective of our study was to evaluate the techniques and procedures employed to achieve commissural alignment in TAVR, as well as to assess the efficacy and measure the impact on coronary re-access in valve-in-valve procedures.

There are a number of devastating complications associated with peripheral artery disease, including limb amputations and acute limb ischemia. Despite the overlap, atherosclerotic diseases have distinct causes that need to be differentiated and managed appropriately. In coronary atherosclerosis, thrombosis is often precipitated by rupture or erosion of fibrous caps around atheromatous plaques, which leads to acute coronary syndrome. Regardless of the extent of atherosclerosis, peripheral artery disease manifests itself as thrombosis. Two-thirds of patients with acute limb ischemia have thrombi associated with insignificant atherosclerosis. A local thrombogenic or remotely embolic basis of critical limb ischemia may be explained by obliterative thrombi in peripheral arteries of patients without coronary artery-like lesions. Studies showed that thrombosis of the above-knee arteries was more commonly due to calcified nodules, which are the least common cause of luminal thrombosis associated with acute coronary events in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Cardiovascular mortality was higher in peripheral artery disease without myocardial infarction/stroke than in myocardial infarction/stroke without peripheral artery disease. The aim of this paper is to gather published data regarding the disparities of acute coronary syndrome with and without peripheral artery disease in terms of pathophysiology and mortality.

The evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has led to significant advances in drug-coated balloon (DCB) technology, offering a stent-free alternative for treating coronary artery disease. While paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) have been the standard, sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) are emerging as a viable alternative with distinct pharmacokinetic and clinical benefits. This review explores the mechanisms of action of paclitaxel and sirolimus, their impact on different plaque morphologies, and the clinical implications of DCB selection. Paclitaxel facilitates positive vascular remodeling and is particularly effective in fibrotic and lipid-rich plaques, but its poor penetration in calcified lesions remains a limitation. Sirolimus, with its homogeneous tissue distribution and anti-inflammatory properties, is better suited for unstable, lipid-rich, and inflammatory plaques, where it promotes plaque stabilization. Recent randomized trials and meta-analyses have compared SCBs vs. PCBs in both de novo lesions and in-stent restenosis, showing non-inferior outcomes. Additionally, DCBs demonstrate comparable efficacy to DES in small vessel disease, reducing the need for permanent metallic scaffolds. This review summarizes the current evidence on DCB selection based on plaque characteristics and highlights areas for further investigation in personalized PCI strategies. Given the narrative review design, the authors conducted a comprehensive literature search using databases such as PubMed and MEDLINE. Keywords included “drug-coated balloon”, “paclitaxel-coated balloon”, “sirolimus-coated balloon”, “in-stent restenosis”, and “plaque morphology”. Studies were selected based on relevance, including randomized controlled trials, registries, and meta-analyses. No formal inclusion/exclusion criteria or systematic screening were applied due to the nature of narrative synthesis.

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged as an alternative to drug-eluting stents (DESs) in percutaneous coronary intervention, delivering antiproliferative drugs without leaving a permanent implant. This review provides a comparative analysis of sirolimus-coated DCBs (DCB-S), paclitaxel-coated DCBs (DCB-P), and DESs across key scenarios: de novo coronary lesions in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), acute coronary syndromes (ACS), and in-stent restenosis (ISR). We discuss late lumen loss (LLL), target lesion/vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR), vessel patency, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) outcomes, along with current guidelines and emerging indications for DCB-S. We also examine pharmacological differences between sirolimus and paclitaxel (mechanisms of action, tissue uptake, and healing profiles), trial methodologies, and recent innovations in DCB technology. Across stable de novo lesions (especially small vessels and high bleeding-risk patients), multiple trials show DCB-P can achieve non-inferior clinical outcomes to DES. Early data suggest newer DCB-S may likewise match DES outcomes in broader populations. In ACS, DCB-only strategies have demonstrated feasibility and safety in carefully selected lesions without heavy thrombus, with randomized studies like REVELATION (STEMI) showing non-inferior fractional flow reserve and low revascularization rates compared to DES. For ISR, DCB-P is an established Class I treatment in both BMS-ISR and DES-ISR, yielding similar or lower TLR rates than repeat stenting. DCB-S are now being evaluated as an alternative in ISR, aiming to avoid additional stent layers. Contemporary guidelines endorse DCB use in ISR and small vessels, and experts anticipate expanding indications as evidence grows. Sirolimus and paclitaxel differ in antiproliferative mechanisms and pharmacokinetics—sirolimus (cytostatic, mTOR inhibition) may offer faster endothelial recovery, whereas paclitaxel’s high lipophilicity ensures sustained arterial wall retention. Technological advances (e.g., phospholipid micro-reservoirs for sirolimus) are enhancing drug transfer and addressing prior limitations. In summary, DCB-P and DCB-S now represent viable alternatives to DES in specific scenarios, especially where “leaving nothing behind” could reduce long-term complications. Ongoing large randomized trials, such as SELUTION DeNovo, currently available as conference-presented data, together with longer-term follow-up will further clarify the optimal niches for DCB-S versus DCB-P and DES.

Coronary physiology is widely used to assess epicardial coronary lesions in patients with stable angina. Based on the available evidence, physiology plays a crucial role in diagnosing and treating patients. There have been invasive methods for determining cardiac physiology, such as fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio. Still, new non-invasive approaches provide extra anatomical information, such as fractional flow reserve computed tomography (FFR-CT) based on computed tomography and physiology based on angiography. Even though FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is clinically beneficial, one-third of patients retain suboptimal FFR after the procedure, associated with severe adverse events, rendering PCI in diffuse coronary artery disease questionable. Using the pullback pressure gradient (PPG), we can analyze the magnitude and extent of pressure losses; a lower value may indicate diffuse disease, while a high value with an abrupt curve may indicate focal disease. Since PCI is not the best option for treating diffuse coronary disease, current strategies focus on conservatively using medical therapy or bypass surgery. It has been demonstrated that patients with diffuse disease of the left anterior descending (LAD) are at a greater risk of developing occlusion of the left internal mammary artery graft than those with focal disease and that maximal medical therapy may be the most effective treatment for these patients.