Prognostic Impact of Drug-Coated Balloons in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Propensity-Matched Study.

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at higher risk of restenosis and stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and drug-eluting stent (DES) positioning. Whether drug-coated balloons (DCB) can offer any benefit in this subset of patients has been seldom cleared out and was the aim of the present propensity-matched cohort study, that compared the prognostic impact of DCB versus DES in patients with DM who underwent PCI. Patients with DM enrolled in the NOvara-BIella-TREnto (NOBITRE) Registry were identified and matched according to propensity score, to a control population of patients with DM treated with DES. The primary study end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). A total of 150 patients were identified in the DCB group and matched with 150 DES-treated patients. Patients treated with DCB displayed more often a previous cardiovascular history and received a more complete pharmacological therapy. Target vessel diameter and the percentage of stenosis were lower in patients with DCB, whereas binary in-stent restenosis was more common (p <0.001, p = 0.003, and p <0.001, respectively). Paclitaxel-eluting balloon represented the most common strategy in the DCB group, whereas Zotarolimus-eluting stents were used in half of the DES population. At a median follow-up of 545.5 days, MACE occurred in 54 (19.4%) of patients, with no difference according to the PCI strategy (21.6% vs 17.3%, adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.51 [0.46 to 4.93], p = 0.50). Major ischemic end points were slightly increased in patients treated with DCB, whereas overall death was significantly reduced (3.6% vs 10.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.27 [0.08 to 0.91], p = 0.03). In conclusion, the present propensity-matched study shows that, in patients with DM who underwent PCI for in-stent restenosis or de novo lesions, the use of DCB is associated with a similar rate of MACE and a modest increase in target lesion failure, but a significantly improved survival as compared with DES.