Coronary interventions

Bare metal or drug-eluting stent versus drug-coated balloon in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the randomised PEPCAD NSTEMI trial

EuroIntervention 2020;15:1527-1533. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00723

Bruno Scheller
Bruno Scheller1, MD; Marc-Alexander Ohlow2, MD; Sebastian Ewen1, MD; Stephan Kische3, MD; Tanja K. Rudolph4, MD; Yvonne P. Clever1, MD; Andreas Wagner2, MD; Stefan Richter2, MD; Mohammad El-Garhy2, MD; Michael Böhm1, MD; Ralf Degenhardt5, PhD; Felix Mahfoud1, MD; Bernward Lauer6, MD
1. Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany; 2. Zentralklinik, Bad Berka, Germany; 3. Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany; 4. Uniklinik Köln, Herzzentrum, Cologne, Germany; 5. Herz-Kreislauf-Zentrum, Rotenburg an der Fulda, Germany; 6. Universitätsklinikum Jena, Germany

Aims: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) may avoid stent-associated long-term complications. This trial compared the clinical outcomes of patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) treated with either DCB or stents.

Methods and results: A total of 210 patients with NSTEMI were enrolled in a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority multicentre trial comparing a paclitaxel iopromide-coated DCB with primary stent treatment. The main inclusion criterion was an identifiable culprit lesion without angiographic evidence of large thrombus. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF; combined clinical endpoint consisting of cardiac or unknown death, reinfarction, and target lesion revascularisation) after nine months. Secondary endpoints included total major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and individual clinical endpoints. Mean age was 67±12 years, 67% were male, 62% had multivessel disease, and 31% were diabetics. One hundred and four patients were randomised to DCB, 106 to stent treatment. In the stent group, 56% of patients were treated with BMS, 44% with current-generation DES. In the DCB group, 85% of patients were treated with DCB only whereas 15% underwent additional stent implantation. During a follow-up of 9.2±0.7 months, DCB treatment was non-inferior to stent treatment with a TLF rate of 3.8% versus 6.6% (intention-to-treat, p=0.53). There was no significant difference between BMS and current-generation DES. The total MACE rate was 6.7% for DCB versus 14.2% for stent treatment (p=0.11), and 5.9% versus 14.4% in the per protocol analysis (p=0.056), respectively.

Conclusions: In patients with NSTEMI, treatment of coronary de novo lesions with DCB was non-inferior to stenting with BMS or DES. These data warrant further investigation of DCB in this setting, in larger trials with DES as comparator ( Identifier: NCT01489449).

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?

No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from

bare metal stentdrug-eluting balloondrug-eluting stentnstemi
Coronary interventionsNSTEMI
Read next article
The year in review: coronary interventions

Latest news