Objectives: We sought to systematically review the evidence supporting the role of drug coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Background: DCBs are emerging as an attractive alternative treatment strategy for treating coronary bifurcations due to simplifying the approach and reducing rates of stent related complications. We systematically reviewed the evidence for DCB use in coronary bifurcations and conducted a focused meta-analysis on late lumen loss in the side branch comparing DCB and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA). Methods: This study was conducted in line with the PRISMA statement. All studies (including both RCTs and observational studies, excluding case reports) using DCB as part of a bifurcation strategy were included in this review. A literature search identified a total of ten studies for inclusion. A focused meta-analysis was undertaken for the use of DCB in side-branch compared with POBA. Mean late lumen loss was used with a random effects model due to heterogeneity. Results: DCB was found to be superior to POBA for side branch treatment in bifurcations (p = 0.01). There are four studies that investigated the use of DCB for main branch treatment in a bifurcation, with evidence supporting its safety in main branches of bifurcation lesions, while prospective observational studies have demonstrated favourable target lesion revascularisation rates. Conclusion: Although there is a lack of robust RCTs comparing DCBs with current generation DES, DCBs appear safe in main branch bifurcation lesions with improved side branch late lumen loss when compared with DES or POBA.

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.

Computational tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) is increasingly the diagnostic test of choice for investigating patients with stable anginal symptoms. We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CTCA with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with regards to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), procedural complications and rates of revascularisation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with the PRISMA statement. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase, with three studies included in meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Review Manager 5.3 for MacOS software and outcomes expressed as odds ratio, with 95% confidence intervals and sensitivity analysis was conducted. A total of 5662 patients were included in this study level meta-analysis. There was no difference in MACE between CT and angiography [2.97% v 3.45%, fixed-effect model, OR: 0.84 (0.62-1.14), p = 0.26, I² 0%] and no difference found in rates of myocardial infarction, death or stroke. CTCA was associated with a reduced rate of revascularisation [12.6% v 18.3%, fixed-effects model, OR: 0.64 (0.55-0.75), p<0.00001, I² =0%]. However, CTCA was not associated with a significantly lower complication rate [0.5% v 1.72%, random effects model, OR: 0.52 (0.06-4.38), p = 0.55, I² 52%]. CTCA is a safe strategy for investigating patients with stable angina with no associated increase in MACE but a reduction in revascularisation rates.

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.

While the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) has become the first-line strategy for treating coronary artery disease, there are still drawbacks with their use. As our understanding of coronary artery anatomy and physiology evolves, growing evidence supports the use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) not only in the treatment of in-stent restenosis but also in de novo lesions. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine if there is a difference in outcomes when DCBs are used versus when stents are used. PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was acute vessel closure and the secondary outcomes were stent complications including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Eleven studies with a total of 2349 patients were included. No significant difference was found in terms of acute vessel closure between DCBs and all stents (2.6% vs. 1.0%, OR: 2.13 (0.74–6.44), I²: 4%, p = 0.16). Furthermore, there was no difference in MACE (6.8% vs. 10.1%, OR: 0.53 (0.27–1.04), I²: 48%, p = 0.06), all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularisation. This meta-analysis suggests that the use of DCBs is a safe alternative to stents when treating coronary artery disease.