Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged as an increasingly valuable option for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DCBs enables the localized delivery of antiproliferative drugs directly to the target coronary lesion, avoiding the need for permanent scaffold implantation. Historically, paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) have been the most used device in this context. Paclitaxel interferes with intracellular microtubule function, leading to cell cycle arrest. However, its cytotoxicity at a higher dosage and narrow therapeutic range has raised some safety concerns. To address these issues, sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) have been introduced as an alternative. Sirolimus acts as a cytostatic agent with potent anti-inflammatory and antiproliferative properties and is characterized by a wider therapeutic range, potentially offering a safer profile. Several experimental and clinical studies comparing the safety and efficacy of PCBs versus SCBs have yielded mixed results. Recently, a novel DCB (SirPlux Duo), which simultaneously releases both paclitaxel and sirolimus, has been tested in a porcine coronary model with promising results. In this review, we will elucidate the mechanisms of action of paclitaxel and sirolimus, examine contemporary preclinical and clinical evidence comparing PCB and SCB angioplasty, and discuss novel devices that may enhance the safety and efficacy of PCI with DCBs.

Coronary vasomotor disorders (CVD) are characterized by transient hypercontraction of coronary vascular smooth muscle cells, leading to hypercontraction of epicardial and/or microvascular coronary circulation. CVDs play a relevant role in the pathogenesis of ischemia, angina and myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Invasive provocative testing with intracoronary Acetylcholine (ACh) administration is the gold standard tool for addressing CVD, providing relevant therapeutic and prognostic implications. However, safety concerns preclude the widespread incorporation of the ACh test into clinical practice. The purpose of this review is to shed light on the pathophysiology underlying CVD and on the clinical role of the ACh test, focusing on safety profile and prognostic implications. We will also discuss contemporary evidence on the management of CVD and the role of the ACh test in driving a personalized approach of patients with CVD.

Despite evidence-based therapies, patients presenting with atherosclerosis involving more than one vascular bed, such as those with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD), constitute a particularly vulnerable group characterized by enhanced residual long-term risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as major adverse limb events (MALE). The latter are progressively emerging as a difficult outcome to target, being correlated with increased mortality. Antithrombotic therapy is the mainstay of secondary prevention in both patients with PAD or CAD; however, the optimal intensity of such therapy is still a topic of debate, particularly in the post-acute and long-term setting. Recent well-powered randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have provided data in favor of a more intense antithrombotic therapy, such as prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor or a therapy with aspirin combined with an anticoagulant drug. Both approaches increase bleeding and selection of patients is a key issue. The aim of this review is, therefore, to discuss and summarize the most up-to-date available evidence for different strategies of anti-thrombotic therapies in patients with chronic PAD and CAD, particularly focusing on studies enrolling patients with both types of atherosclerotic disease and comparing a higher- versus a lower-intensity antithrombotic strategy. The final objective is to identify the optimal tailored approach in this setting, to achieve the greatest cardiovascular benefit and improve precision medicine.

Aims: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an emerging cause of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in young women without a typical cardiovascular risk profile. Knowledge on SCAD is based on observational studies and is still scarce. The aim of this monocentric observational study was to evaluate the predisposing factors, clinical features and prognosis of SCAD patients. Methods: Between 2013 and 2020, 58 patients with angiographic diagnosis of SCAD were identified in our centre with an overall prevalence of 0.9% among patients admitted for AMI (58 of 6414 patients). Results: The mean age was 54 ± 11 years and the majority were women (n = 50, 86%) with one or fewer cardiovascular risk factors (n = 35, 60%). The prevalence of Fibromuscolar Dysplasia (FMD) was 39% (7 of 18 screened patients). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) was used to assess the prognosis. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest because of ventricular fibrillation was observed in four (7%) patients. The majority of patients (n = 51, 88%) were treated conservatively without revascularization. The in-hospital and 30-day clinical course was uneventful in most patients (n = 54, 93%) with two cardiac deaths. During a median follow-up of 12 months, there were no further deaths. The global rate of SCAD recurrence was significant (n = 8, 14%) but predictors have not been identified. Conclusion: Although overall survival seems good, SCAD is a potentially malignant, not rare disease, which can present with sudden cardiac death and not uncommon recurrence. Prognostic stratification and optimal management of SCAD patients remain to be defined.