TY - JOUR
T1 - Successful or Uncomplicated Use of Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent Strategies for De Novo Culprit Lesions in Acute Coronary Syndromes
T2 - Insights from a Nationwide Registry in Japan
AU - the J-PCI Registry Investigators
AU - Takahashi, Tomonori
AU - Yamaji, Kyohei
AU - Kohsaka, Shun
AU - Ishii, Hideki
AU - Mori, Yuichiro
AU - Kikuta, Yuetsu
AU - Wakatsuki, Tetsuzo
AU - Yamaguchi, Koji
AU - Nishioka, Daisuke
AU - Kusunose, Kenya
AU - Amano, Tetsuya
AU - Sata, Masataka
AU - Kozuma, Ken
AU - Uemura, Shiro
AU - Hikichi, Yutaka
AU - Ikari, Yuji
AU - Kaikita, Koichi
AU - Kobayashi, Yoshio
AU - Shinke, Toshiro
AU - Sonoda, Shinjo
AU - Takahashi, Saeko
AU - Hibi, Kiyoshi
AU - Maekawa, Yuichiro
AU - Yamada, Shinichiro
AU - Iida, Osamu
AU - Nakamura, Masato
AU - Ando, Hirohiko
AU - Kunimura, Ayako
AU - Suzuki, Takahiro
AU - Hideki, Wada
AU - Ozaki, Kazuyuki
AU - Hiroyuki, Kunii
AU - Kuramitsu, Syoichi
AU - Sawano, Mitsuaki
AU - Takahashi, Jun
AU - Takeuchi, Toshiharu
AU - Numasawa, Yohei
AU - Watanabe, Tetsu
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s).
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - BACKGROUND: Randomized trials demonstrated that drug-coated balloon (DCB) was not inferior to drug-eluting stent (DES) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, generalizability in clinical settings remains unclear. The present study compared the outcomes of DCB and DES strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS within a nationwide procedure-based registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective analysis of a cohort study from a prospective, nationwide registry between January 2017 and December 2020 in Japan, focusing on patients with ACS who underwent DCB or DES for a single de novo lesion. Patients who required bailout stenting after treatment with DCB were excluded from the analysis. The 1-year incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, nonfatal ACS, stroke, and major bleeding events was compared. A subgroup analysis included lesion-based and ST-elevation myocardial infarction/non-ST-elevation ACS stratifications. Among 5212 propensity score–matched patients with ACS, no significant differences were observed in the 1-year incidence of all-cause mortality (4.5% versus 4.6%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.72–1.19]); cardiovascular death (2.5% versus 2.5%, HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.64–1.26]); noncardiovascular death (2.0% versus 2.1%, HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.65–1.42]); or nonfatal ACS (1.7% versus 2.0%, HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.70–1.54]) between DCB and DES. DCB was associated with a higher incidence of stroke (0.8% versus 0.3%, HR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.06–5.08]) and lower incidence of major bleeding events (1.4% versus 2.3%, HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43–0.99]); however, these results were not reproduced in the subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The DCB strategy for successfully treated ACS cases achieved similar clinical outcomes to DES after 1 year. Further studies with an extended follow-up are needed to confirm these results.
AB - BACKGROUND: Randomized trials demonstrated that drug-coated balloon (DCB) was not inferior to drug-eluting stent (DES) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, generalizability in clinical settings remains unclear. The present study compared the outcomes of DCB and DES strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS within a nationwide procedure-based registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective analysis of a cohort study from a prospective, nationwide registry between January 2017 and December 2020 in Japan, focusing on patients with ACS who underwent DCB or DES for a single de novo lesion. Patients who required bailout stenting after treatment with DCB were excluded from the analysis. The 1-year incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, nonfatal ACS, stroke, and major bleeding events was compared. A subgroup analysis included lesion-based and ST-elevation myocardial infarction/non-ST-elevation ACS stratifications. Among 5212 propensity score–matched patients with ACS, no significant differences were observed in the 1-year incidence of all-cause mortality (4.5% versus 4.6%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.72–1.19]); cardiovascular death (2.5% versus 2.5%, HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.64–1.26]); noncardiovascular death (2.0% versus 2.1%, HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.65–1.42]); or nonfatal ACS (1.7% versus 2.0%, HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.70–1.54]) between DCB and DES. DCB was associated with a higher incidence of stroke (0.8% versus 0.3%, HR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.06–5.08]) and lower incidence of major bleeding events (1.4% versus 2.3%, HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43–0.99]); however, these results were not reproduced in the subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The DCB strategy for successfully treated ACS cases achieved similar clinical outcomes to DES after 1 year. Further studies with an extended follow-up are needed to confirm these results.
KW - ST-elevation myocardial infarction
KW - non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome
KW - paclitaxel-coated balloon
KW - percutaneous coronary intervention
KW - real-world data
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105008111553
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105008111553#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1161/JAHA.124.038071
DO - 10.1161/JAHA.124.038071
M3 - Article
C2 - 40439158
AN - SCOPUS:105008111553
SN - 2047-9980
VL - 14
SP - 1
EP - 12
JO - Journal of the American Heart Association
JF - Journal of the American Heart Association
IS - 11
M1 - e038071
ER -