\n
\n <\/p>\n\n Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on
.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n “
We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.<\/strong> <\/p>\nBack to Healio<\/button><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\nKey takeaways:<\/h2>\n\nA strategy using a drug-eluting balloon with minimal stenting was noninferior vs. a DES for ACS treatment.<\/li>\n The balloon was a safe alternative vs. DES in patients with non-STEMI or unstable angina.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nA strategy of using a drug-eluting balloon with minimal stenting was noninferior compared with systematic drug-eluting stent use for treatment of acute coronary syndrome, a speaker reported.<\/p>\n
A sirolimus-eluting balloon (Selution SLR, MedAlliance\/Cordis) with minimal stenting was a safe alternative to DES use at 1 year for patients who presented with non-STEMI or unstable angina, according to the results of the SELUTION DeNovo study presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions Scientific Sessions & Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology\/Association Canadienne de cardiologie d\u2019intervention Summit.<\/p>\n
\n
Image: Adobe Stock<\/em>
\u201cAt 1 year, in the intention-to-treat analysis, the noninferiority endpoint was met. But the trial included patients with acute coronary syndromes as well as chronic coronary syndromes, and the pathophysiology causing those presentations is quite different, with acute coronary syndromes having a preponderance of plaque erosion, plaque rupture and greater presence of thrombus,\u201d Andrew Ladwiniec, MA, MD, MRCP<\/b>,<\/b> consultant cardiologist and director of cardiac catheterization laboratories at Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust and honorary senior lecturer at University of Leicester, U.K., said during a press conference. \u201cGiven the pathophysiology is different, it may be that the efficacy of a drug-eluting balloon-only approach is also different. So that was the rationale for conducting this substudy.\u201d<\/p>\n
As Healio previously reported, in the main results of the SELUTION DeNovo trial, the sirolimus-eluting balloon was noninferior vs. standard care for treatment of de novo coronary lesions and in-stent restenosis.<\/p>\n
For the present subanalysis, researchers evaluated use of the sirolimus-eluting balloon vs. DES among participants with ACS \u2014 defined as non-STEMI or unstable angina \u2014 which comprised approximately 33% of the main cohort (n = 1,082). Patients with STEMI or unstable non-STEMI were excluded from the analysis.<\/p>\n
Researchers reported that the risk difference for 1-year target vessel failure in patients with ACS was not significantly different between the two groups (sirolimus-eluting balloon, 5.3%; DES, 4.9%; risk difference, 0.37 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.28 to 3.01).<\/p>\n
The sirolimus-eluting balloon and provisional stenting strategy remained noninferior vs. the DES strategy in subgroup analyses based on clinical presentation (ACS vs. chronic coronary syndrome; P<\/i> for interaction < .65) and ACS subtype (non-STEMI vs. unstable angina; P<\/i> for interaction < .57), according to the presentation.<\/p>\n
Rates of cardiac death, target vessel-related MI and clinically driven target vessel revascularization were low in both groups and were not significantly different, according to the presentation.<\/p>\n
\u201cUse of Selution with minimal stenting appears to be safe and effective as an alternative to DES implantation for patients presenting with non-STEMI or unstable angina. At 1 year, target vessel failure event rates were low and similar in both groups, consistent with the outcomes that we\u2019ve observed in patients with chronic coronary syndromes, and there was not a significant interaction. Importantly, there were no acute or late safety concerns,\u201d Ladwiniec said during the press conference. \u201cThe potential long-term benefits of a minimal stenting approach are yet to be seen, but will be further evaluated with follow-up extending out to 5 years.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n
\n
Published by:<\/span>\n
Sources\/Disclosures<\/h3>\n Source: <\/h2>\n Ladwiniec A, et al. Late-breaking clinical trials. Presented at: Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions Scientific Sessions & Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology\/Association Canadienne de cardiologie d\u2019intervention Summit; April 23-25, 2026; Montreal.<\/p>\n
\n
Disclosures: <\/strong>
<\/p>\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Ask a clinical question<\/strong> and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge<\/strong> base.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nPubMed, enrolling\/recruiting trials, guidelines<\/li>\n
<\/p>\n
Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news<\/li>\n
<\/p>\n
Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data<\/li>\n
\n <\/ul>\n
Learn more<\/button>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n
![\"cardiology](\"https:\/\/www.healio.com\/~\/media\/h5\/feature\/news\/publogos\/ct.svg?la=en&h=23&w=153&hash=A06CB53CC9857108FFDFA7B802CDF777\")
\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n