Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41598219›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Paclitaxel- and Sirolimus-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.

Flavius-Alexandru Gherasie, Al Hassan Ali, Ana Maria Corzanu, Eva Catalina Costescu, Sonia-Gabriela Cornea

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Flavius-Alexandru GherasieDepartment of Cardiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila," 050474 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-4575-766X
Al Hassan AliDepartment of Cardiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila," 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Ana Maria CorzanuDepartment of Cardiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila," 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Eva Catalina CostescuDepartment of Cardiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila," 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Sonia-Gabriela CorneaDepartment of Cardiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila," 050474 Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged as an alternative to drug-eluting stents (DESs) in percutaneous coronary intervention, delivering antiproliferative drugs without leaving a permanent implant. This review provides a comparative analysis of sirolimus-coated DCBs (DCB-S), paclitaxel-coated DCBs (DCB-P), and DESs across key scenarios: de novo coronary lesions in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), acute coronary syndromes (ACS), and in-stent restenosis (ISR). We discuss late lumen loss (LLL), target lesion/vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR), vessel patency, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) outcomes, along with current guidelines and emerging indications for DCB-S. We also examine pharmacological differences between sirolimus and paclitaxel (mechanisms of action, tissue uptake, and healing profiles), trial methodologies, and recent innovations in DCB technology. Across stable de novo lesions (especially small vessels and high bleeding-risk patients), multiple trials show DCB-P can achieve non-inferior clinical outcomes to DES. Early data suggest newer DCB-S may likewise match DES outcomes in broader populations. In ACS, DCB-only strategies have demonstrated feasibility and safety in carefully selected lesions without heavy thrombus, with randomized studies like REVELATION (STEMI) showing non-inferior fractional flow reserve and low revascularization rates compared to DES. For ISR, DCB-P is an established Class I treatment in both BMS-ISR and DES-ISR, yielding similar or lower TLR rates than repeat stenting. DCB-S are now being evaluated as an alternative in ISR, aiming to avoid additional stent layers. Contemporary guidelines endorse DCB use in ISR and small vessels, and experts anticipate expanding indications as evidence grows. Sirolimus and paclitaxel differ in antiproliferative mechanisms and pharmacokinetics-sirolimus (cytostatic, mTOR inhibition) may offer faster endothelial recovery, whereas paclitaxel's high lipophilicity ensures sustained arterial wall retention. Technological advances (e.g., phospholipid micro-reservoirs for sirolimus) are enhancing drug transfer and addressing prior limitations. In summary, DCB-P and DCB-S now represent viable alternatives to DES in specific scenarios, especially where "leaving nothing behind" could reduce long-term complications. Ongoing large randomized trials, such as SELUTION DeNovo, currently available as conference-presented data, together with longer-term follow-up will further clarify the optimal niches for DCB-S versus DCB-P and DES.

Indexed as

acute coronary syndromeballoon angioplastycoronary artery diseasedrug-coated balloondrug-eluting stentin-stent restenosislate lumen lossmajor adverse cardiac eventsminimal lumen diameterpaclitaxelpercutaneous coronary interventionsirolimustarget lesion revascularization

Identifiers

PMID41598219
PMCPMC12842739

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.