Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 24, 2026
Predicting Amputation using Local Circulating Mononuclear Progenitor Cells in Angioplasty-treated Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia
Published on: September 22, 2020
Outcomes With Limus- vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of
Ramy Sedhom1, Mohamed Hamed2, Ayman Elbadawi3
1Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Background:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the outcomes with limus drug-coated balloons (DCBs) vs paclitaxel DCBs were small and underpowered for clinical endpoints.
Objectives:
This study sought to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes with limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Methods:
An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed through January 2024 for RCTs comparing limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for PCI. The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were late angiographic findings. Summary estimates were constructed using a random effects model.
Results:
Six RCTs with 821 patients were included; 446 patients received a limus DCB, and 375 patients received a paclitaxel DCB. There was no difference between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs in the incidence of TLR at a mean of 13.4 months (10.3% vs 7.8%; risk ratio [RR]: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant interaction among studies for de novo coronary lesions vs in-stent restenosis (Pinteraction = 0.58). There were no differences in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiac mortality, or target vessel myocardial infarction between groups. However, limus DCBs were associated with a higher risk of binary restenosis (RR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.14-3.12), late lumen loss (mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28), and a smaller minimum lumen diameter (mean difference = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02) at late follow-up. In addition, late lumen enlargement occurred more frequently (50% vs 27.5%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) with paclitaxel DCBs.
Conclusions:
Among patients undergoing DCB-only PCI, there were no differences in the risk of clinically driven TLR and other clinical outcomes between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs. However, paclitaxel DCBs were associated with better late angiographic outcomes. These findings support the need for future trials to establish the role of new-generation limus DCBs for PCI.
