Angiographic and functional assessment after paclitaxel or sirolimus drug-coated balloons for de novo coronary artery disease in small vessels: PICCOLETO VI study.

AsiaIntervention Pub Date : 2026-03-19 eCollection Date: 2026-03-01 DOI:10.4244/AIJ-D-25-00057
Simone Fezzi, Mauro Gitto, Aurora Trevisanello, Faisal Sharif, Gabriele Venturi, Jacek Bezubka, Sylwia Iwanczyk, Wojciech Wanha, Michał Hawranek, Maksymilian Mielczarek, Piotr Wańczura, Monica Verdoia, Pietro Pieri, Antonio Mugnolo, Bharat Khialani, Ilya Litovchik, Antoinette Monayer, Tuomas T Rissanen, Flavio Ribichini, Antonio Colombo, Bernardo Cortese
{"title":"Angiographic and functional assessment after paclitaxel or sirolimus drug-coated balloons for de novo coronary artery disease in small vessels: PICCOLETO VI study.","authors":"Simone Fezzi, Mauro Gitto, Aurora Trevisanello, Faisal Sharif, Gabriele Venturi, Jacek Bezubka, Sylwia Iwanczyk, Wojciech Wanha, Michał Hawranek, Maksymilian Mielczarek, Piotr Wańczura, Monica Verdoia, Pietro Pieri, Antonio Mugnolo, Bharat Khialani, Ilya Litovchik, Antoinette Monayer, Tuomas T Rissanen, Flavio Ribichini, Antonio Colombo, Bernardo Cortese","doi":"10.4244/AIJ-D-25-00057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) have strong supporting evidence for use in small coronary vessels, while sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) have shown variable angiographic results, raising questions about their overall effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The PICCOLETO VI study aimed to compare the angiographic and physiological outcomes of various PCB and SCB technologies in treating <i>de novo</i> coronary artery disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This international, multicentre study included patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and had elective angiographic follow-up 5-9 months later. Angiographic and physiological assessments were performed by a core laboratory, including Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on a cohort of 293 patients, 227 lesions treated either with a PCB (n=148) or an SCB (n=79) were included. No differences in terms of baseline clinical or angiographic characteristics were reported between the two cohorts. PCB showed lower late lumen loss (-0.05±0.56 mm vs +0.10±0.59 mm; p=0.05) and a higher prevalence of late lumen enlargement (58.1% vs 40.5%; p=0.01). The primary endpoint of late functional loss was not statistically different, with a trend in favour of PCB (-0.01±0.15 vs +0.03±0.13; p=0.09). There was no difference in terms of target lesion failure, with a higher rate of ischaemia-inducing vessels at follow-up in the SCB group (14.9% vs 26.6%; p=0.03). A μFR <=0.86 following drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment emerged as a reliable cutoff for predicting follow-up ischaemia, with an accuracy of 80%, whereas no significant interaction was observed for a post-DCB angiographic degree of stenosis >=30%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this direct comparison between two classes of DCB, late functional loss was comparable between PCB and SCB, with PCB confirming superior angiographic performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":72310,"journal":{"name":"AsiaIntervention","volume":"12 1","pages":"28-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12987396/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AsiaIntervention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4244/AIJ-D-25-00057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) have strong supporting evidence for use in small coronary vessels, while sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) have shown variable angiographic results, raising questions about their overall effectiveness.

Aims: The PICCOLETO VI study aimed to compare the angiographic and physiological outcomes of various PCB and SCB technologies in treating de novo coronary artery disease.

Methods: This international, multicentre study included patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and had elective angiographic follow-up 5-9 months later. Angiographic and physiological assessments were performed by a core laboratory, including Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR).

Results: Based on a cohort of 293 patients, 227 lesions treated either with a PCB (n=148) or an SCB (n=79) were included. No differences in terms of baseline clinical or angiographic characteristics were reported between the two cohorts. PCB showed lower late lumen loss (-0.05±0.56 mm vs +0.10±0.59 mm; p=0.05) and a higher prevalence of late lumen enlargement (58.1% vs 40.5%; p=0.01). The primary endpoint of late functional loss was not statistically different, with a trend in favour of PCB (-0.01±0.15 vs +0.03±0.13; p=0.09). There was no difference in terms of target lesion failure, with a higher rate of ischaemia-inducing vessels at follow-up in the SCB group (14.9% vs 26.6%; p=0.03). A μFR <=0.86 following drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment emerged as a reliable cutoff for predicting follow-up ischaemia, with an accuracy of 80%, whereas no significant interaction was observed for a post-DCB angiographic degree of stenosis >=30%.

Conclusions: In this direct comparison between two classes of DCB, late functional loss was comparable between PCB and SCB, with PCB confirming superior angiographic performance.

紫杉醇或西罗莫司药物包被球囊治疗小血管新生冠状动脉疾病后的血管造影和功能评估:PICCOLETO VI研究
背景:紫杉醇包被球囊(PCB)在小冠状血管中的应用有强有力的支持证据,而西罗莫司包被球囊(SCB)的血管造影结果不同,这引起了对其整体有效性的质疑。目的:PICCOLETO VI研究旨在比较各种PCB和SCB技术治疗新发冠状动脉疾病的血管造影和生理结果。方法:这项国际、多中心的研究纳入了接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者,并在5-9个月后进行了选择性血管造影随访。血管造影和生理评估由核心实验室进行,包括Murray定律定量血流比(μFR)。结果:基于293例患者的队列,包括227例病变,用PCB (n=148)或SCB (n=79)治疗。在基线临床或血管造影特征方面,两个队列之间没有差异。PCB显示较低的晚期管腔损失(-0.05±0.56 mm vs +0.10±0.59 mm, p=0.05)和较高的晚期管腔扩大发生率(58.1% vs 40.5%, p=0.01)。晚期功能丧失的主要终点无统计学差异,倾向于PCB(-0.01±0.15 vs +0.03±0.13;p=0.09)。两组在靶病变失败方面没有差异,SCB组在随访中有更高的缺血诱导血管发生率(14.9% vs 26.6%; p=0.03)。A μfr =30%。结论:在两类DCB的直接比较中,晚期功能丧失在PCB和SCB之间具有可比性,PCB证实了更优越的血管造影表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书