AsiaIntervention · Mar 16, 2026
Head-to-head comparison of limus- versus paclitaxel-coated balloons in the treatment of in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis
By Sagris M, Soulaidopoulos S, Ktenopoulos N et al.
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of robust comparative data between limus drug-coated balloons (DCBs) versus paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) on their efficacy and safety in treating in-stent restenosis (ISR). AIMS: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of limus DCBs versus PCBs in terms of clinical and angiographic outcomes during a 12-month follow-up. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically explored PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases up to 20 February 2025 for studies comparing limus DCBs versus PCBs in terms of safety, efficacy, and angiographic outcomes in treating ISR. The primary outcomes were the incidence of clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and failure (TLF). Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and angiographic findings during follow-up. RESULTS: Data from six randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including a total of 639 patients treated with limus DCBs and 569 with PCBs for ISR, were analysed with a mean follow-up of 12 months. In this analysis, all six RCTs reported on TLR (limus DCB 14% vs PCB 11.4%) and TLF (limus DCB 15% vs PCB 14%) incidence, showing no significant difference between the limus DCB and PCB groups. No significant differences were observed in MACE (16.4% vs 13.5%), all-cause mortality (1.8% vs 1.4%), cardiac death (1.4% vs 1.0%) or target vessel myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 1.0%), for limus DCBs versus PCBs, respectively. Angiographic outcomes showed no significant differences in post-intervention minimal lumen diameter (standardised mean difference [SMD] +0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07 to 0.18; I²=0%) or binary restenosis (limus DCB 19.5% vs PCB 12.9%) at follow-up between the groups. The risk of late lumen loss was also comparable between limus DCBs and PCBs for both in-segment (SMD +0.02, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.23; I²=32%) and in-lesion (SMD -0.03, 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.24; I²=27%) analyses. Low heterogeneity was observed across the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that limus DCBs are equally as effective and safe as PCBs for treating ISR, demonstrating non-inferiority in both clinical and angiographic outcomes at 12 months post-intervention.