The Drug Coated Balloon Academic Research Consortium project originated from the lack of standardization and comparability between studies using drug-coated balloons in the treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease. This document is a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and percutaneous coronary intervention societies in Europe, the USA, and Asia. This consensus sought to standardize study designs and endpoints for clinical trials involving drug-coated balloons, including defining angiographic, intravascular, and non-invasive imaging methods for lesion assessment, alongside considerations for post-revascularization pharmaco-therapy. The concept of ‘blended therapy’, which advocates for combining device strategies, is also discussed. This paper delineates study types, endpoint definitions, follow-up protocols, and analytical approaches, aiming to provide consistency and guidance for interventional cardiologists and trialists.

The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients treated with drug-coated balloons (DCBs) or second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) for de novo unprotected left main stem (LMS) disease. Previous studies comparing the treatment of LMS disease suggest that the mortality for DES PCI is not worse than CABG. There are limited data from studies investigating the treatment of de novo LMS disease with DCB angioplasty. We compared the all-cause and cardiac mortality of patients treated with paclitaxel DCB to those with second-generation DES for de novo LMS disease from July 2014 to November 2019. Data were analysed using Kaplan–Meier analyses and propensity-matched analyses. A total of 148 patients were treated with either a DCB or DES strategy. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality in the DCB group (19.5%) compared to the DES group (15.9%) (HR 1.42 [0.61–3.32], p = 0.42). Regarding cardiac mortality, 2 (4.9%) were recorded for the DCB group and 7 (6.5%) for the DES group (HR 1.21 [0.31–4.67], p = 0.786); for target vessel myocardial infarction, there were 0 (0%) for the DCB group and 7 (6.5%) for the DES group; and for target lesion revascularisation, there were 3 (7.3%) in the DCB group and 9 (8.3%) in the DES group (HR: 0.89 [0.24–3.30]). p = 0.86. These remained not significant after propensity score matching. We found no difference in the mortality outcomes with DCB angioplasty compared to second-generation DES, with a median follow-up of 33 months. DCB can therefore be regarded as a safe option in the treatment of LMS disease in suitable patients.

The fervency for advancement and evolution in percutaneous coronary intervention has revolutionised the treatment of coronary artery disease. Historically, the focus of the interventional cardiologist was directed at the restoration of luminal patency of the major epicardial coronary arteries, yet whilst this approach is evolving with much greater utilisation of physiological assessment, it often neglects consideration of the role of the coronary microcirculation, which has been shown to clearly influence prognosis. In this review, we explore the narrative of the coronary circulation as more than just a simple conduit for blood but an organ with functional significance. We review organisation and physiology of the coronary circulation, as well as the current methods and techniques used to examine it. We discuss the studies exploring coronary artery endothelial function, appreciating that coronary artery disease occurs on a spectrum of disorder and that percutaneous coronary intervention has a latent effect on the coronary circulation with long-term consequences. It is concluded that greater recognition of the coronary artery endothelium and mechanisms of the coronary circulation should further guide revascularisation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of drug eluting stents (DESs) is currently the default approach for percutaneous coronary interventions, but long-term adverse events still exist. An approach with minimal stenting deserves to be assessed in a randomized trial. We studied a novel sirolimus-eluting balloon (SEB) that elutes sirolimus over a 90-day period using a biodegradable polymer microreservoir technology. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial, we compared an SEB-based strategy with provisional DES with one of systematic DES for de novo lesions in coronary arteries between 2 and 5 mm in diameter. Subjects were randomized 1:1 before percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. It was tested for noninferiority at 1 year with the use of an absolute margin equal to 50% of the combined event rate at a significance level of 0.025. The primary analysis population included all randomized subjects with completed or attempted percutaneous revascularization, analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Between August 27, 2021, and July 29, 2024, 3323 participants were randomized and treated in 62 sites. Among 1661 participants in the SEB strategy group, bailout stenting was performed in 343 (20.7%). Target vessel failure occurred over 365 days in 88 (5.3%) and 73 (4.4%) participants in the SEB and the systematic DES strategy groups, respectively (risk difference, 0.91% [95% CI –0.55% to 2.38%]; 1-sided P =0.02 for noninferiority with a 2.44% noninferiority margin). Clinically driven target vessel revascularization occurred more frequently in the SEB strategy group (3.3% versus 2.1%; risk difference, 1.22% [95% CI, 0.11%–2.33%). Safety events, including lesion thrombosis, were low and similar in both groups. Although the results of the per-protocol population (3194 participants, 96%) did not confirm noninferiority (upper boundary of the 95% CI, 2.63; P =0.04), they were similar to the intention-to-treat results in both magnitude and direction. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, in the primary intention-to-treat analysis population, a strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention with SEB and provisional DES was noninferior to the systematic use of DES for the primary end point of target vessel failure. The per-protocol population sensitivity analysis did not confirm noninferiority. Clinically driven target vessel revascularization occurred more frequently in the SEB strategy group. At 5 years, target vessel failure will be tested again for noninferiority and for superiority if noninferiority is achieved. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04859985.

A diagnostic and therapeutic transradial programme was instituted at the North Staffordshire Hospital in September 1998. The programme was initiated and supervised by an experienced transradial operator (JN). The workload consists of patients under the direct care of the supervising consultant, along with patients referred for transradial procedures because of arterial access problems. The radial artery was the access site of choice for all procedures performed or supervised by JN (including graft cases, where the left radial artery was employed when access to the left internal mammary artery was required). To minimise the risk of vascular complications in patients who had received thrombolytic treatment, the radial artery was employed for rescue angioplasty procedures. If arterial cannulation could not be supervised, the femoral access site was employed by trainees. All operators were fully trained in transfemoral procedures. The technique employed for transradial procedures has previously been described in detail³ and utilises a specific transradial introducer (Arrow International, UK) and 6 French sheath system (Cook Cardiology, Letchworth, Hertfordshire, UK). Standard Judkins and pigtail catheters are used for diagnostic procedures. For interventional procedures, EBU, Amplatz or Judkins configuration catheters are employed in most patients. Fixed dose heparin (5 000 u for diagnostic procedures, 10 000 u for interventional procedures) is used for all cases. Before the procedure the collateral blood supply to the hand is assessed and an alternative access site chosen if the Allen test is negative. The radial sheath is removed at the end of the procedure, and haemostasis achieved with a unilateral pressure system (RADI Medical Systems, Godalming, Surrey, UK). Chronic oral anticoagulant treatment is continued without interruption for radial cases.

Background/Objectives: The need to determine the safest duration of dual antiplatelet therapy duration after elective angioplasty to reduce bleeding events without an adverse effect on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) remains a challenge. Methods: In this investigator-initiated, single-centre cohort study, we identified all patients who underwent PCI for de novo coronary disease for stable angina between January 2015 and November 2019. We compared 1-month and 12-month durations of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to determine if there was any difference in the primary outcome of major bleeding. The secondary outcome was a patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause mortality; any myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularisation; and the individual components of this composite endpoint. Data were analysed using Cox regression models and cumulative hazard plots. Results: A total of 1025 patients were analysed, of which 340 received 1 month of DAPT and 685 received 12 months of DAPT. There was no difference in major bleeding between the two groups (2.6% vs. 2.5% respectively). On univariable cox regression analysis, no characteristics were predictors of major bleeding. A proportion of 99.7% of patients in the 1-month DAPT arm were treated with a DCB strategy, whilst 93% in the 12-month DAPT group were treated with a DES. There was no difference between the two groups with regards to the composite patient-oriented MACE (11% vs. 12%, respectively) or any individual component of this. These results were unchanged after propensity score matched analysis. Conclusions: A 1-month duration of DAPT, for which 99.7% of patients were treated with a DCB strategy, appears safe and effective when compared with a 12-month duration of DAPT with no difference in major bleeding or MACE.