Comparative Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon and Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients with Hemodynamically Stable Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study Focusing on Long-Term Vascular Structure and Function
Download PDF

Keywords

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS)
Drug-coated balloon (DCB)
Drug-eluting stent (DES)
Late lumen loss (LLL)
Coronary slow flow phenomenon (CSFP)

DOI

10.26689/cr.v4i1.13992

Submitted : 2026-02-01
Accepted : 2026-02-16
Published : 2026-03-03

Abstract

Objective: To compare the differences in long-term vascular structure and function after treatment with drug-coated balloons (DCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with hemodynamically stable acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Patients admitted for ACS between November 2022 and June 2025, with Killip class 1–2, who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and completed 6–12 months of angiographic follow-up were consecutively enrolled. Patients with cardiac arrest, those requiring mechanical ventilation, or those with severe non-cardiovascular comorbidities were excluded. Based on the final interventional technique, patients were divided into the DES group (n = 62) and the DCB group (n = 42). The primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL) measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Secondary endpoints included coronary slow flow phenomenon (CSFP), coronary restenosis, and repeat revascularization during follow-up. Multivariable rank regression was used to adjust for confounding factors such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) status. Results: After multivariable adjustment, the extent of LLL was significantly lower in the DCB group than in the DES group (β = 21.90, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that this advantage persisted across different LVEF levels. Importantly, the incidence of CSFP was significantly lower in the DCB group than in the DES group (2.4% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.016). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of restenosis rate and repeat revascularization rate. Conclusion: In patients with hemodynamically stable ACS, the DCB interventional strategy demonstrates significant advantages over DES in suppressing LLL and preventing CSFP.

References

Morice M, Serruys P, Sousa J, et al., 2002, A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization. N Engl J Med., 346(23): 1773–1780.

Piccolo R, Bonaa K, Efthimiou O, et al., 2019, Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials. Lancet. 393(10190): 2503–2510.

Joner M, Finn A, Farb A, et al., 2006, Pathology of Drug-Eluting Stents in Humans: Delayed Healing and Late Thrombotic Risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 48(1): 193–202.

Scheller B, Speck U, Abramjuk C, et al., 2004, Paclitaxel Balloon Coating, A Novel Method for Prevention and Therapy of Restenosis. Circulation. 110(7): 810–814.

Jeger R, Eccleshall S, Wan Ahmad W, et al., 2020, International DCB Consensus Group. Drug-Coated Balloons for Coronary Artery Disease: Third Report of the International DCB Consensus Group. JACC Cardiovasc Interv., 13(12): 1391–1402.

Yu X, Wang Z, Li Y, et al., 2023, Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med., 2023(46): 1–9.

Gibson C, Cannon C, Daley W, et al., 1996, TIMI Frame Count: A Quantitative Method of Assessing Coronary Artery Flow. Circulation., 93(5): 879–888.

Mauri L, Orav E, Candia S, et al., 2005, Late Loss in Lumen Diameter and Binary Restenosis for Drug-Eluting Stent Comparison. Circulation. 111(25): 3435–3442.

Cutlip D, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al., 2007, Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions. Circulation. 115(17): 2344–2351.

Garcia-Garcia H, McFadden E, Farb A, et al., 2018, Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document. Circulation, 137(24): 2635–2650.

Neumann F, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al., 2019, ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization. Eur Heart J., 40(2): 87–165.

Poerner T, Otto S, Gassdorf J, et al., 2018, Histological Characterization of Healing Patterns After Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in a Porcine Coronary Model. EuroIntervention, 14(11): e1234–e1241.

Wang X, Nie S, Chen C, et al., 2019, Coronary Slow Flow Is Associated With Impaired Left Ventricular Function and Long-Term Adverse Clinical Outcomes. J Am Heart Assoc., 8(12): e012148.

Inoue T, Croce K, Morooka T, et al., 2011, Vascular Inflammation and Repair: Implications for Re-Endothelialization, Restenosis, and Stent Thrombosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv., 4(10): 1057–1066.

Sun Z, Liu S, Li M, et al., 2018, Endothelial Dysfunction in Patients with Coronary Slow Flow and its Correlation with Inflammation. Clin Cardiol., 41(7): 935–940.

Kimura T, Morimoto T, Kozuma K, et al., 2015, Stent Fracture and Longitudinal Compression Deformation After Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv., 8(6): e002373.