Paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have been shown to improve patency and lower revascularization rates compared with plain old balloon angioplasty. DCBs continue to evolve by improving balloon-coating techniques that minimize the quantity of particles washed off into the bloodstream while maximizing drug retention and vascular-healing profile. Against this backdrop, it is clear that the future of antiproliferatives for the superficial femoral artery will focus on enhancements in device coating materials that will improve the efficiency of drug delivery. The Ranger DCB system recently gained US FDA approval for use. This review discusses the background of DCBs and how the Ranger DCB builds on these previous platforms based on experimental and clinical data.

Plain language summary

Drug-coated balloons are medical devices used to open blocked arteries (a procedure called angioplasty) in patients who have atherosclerotic disease. The drug coating is provided to help keep the arteries open after treatment with the balloon. This is thought to occur through several mechanisms. In this review, we discuss recent advances in technology related to drug-coated balloons focusing on the recently introduced Ranger drug-coated Balloon.

Tweetable abstract

Please find our review in which we discuss recent advances in technology related to drug-coated balloons focusing on the recently introduced Ranger drug-coated balloon.

Keywords:

References

1. Marlevi D, Edelman ER. Vascular lesion-specific drug delivery systems: JACC state-of-the-art review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 77(19), 2413–2431 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. Tepe G, Zeller T, Albrecht T et al. Local delivery of paclitaxel to inhibit restenosis during angioplasty of the leg. N. Engl. J. Med. 358(7), 689–699 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Liistro F, Grotti S, Porto I et al. Drug-eluting balloon in peripheral intervention for the superficial femoral artery: the DEBATE-SFA randomized trial (drug eluting balloon in peripheral intervention for the superficial femoral artery). JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 6(12), 1295–1302 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Werk M, Langner S, Reinkensmeier B et al. Inhibition of restenosis in femoropopliteal arteries: paclitaxel-coated versus uncoated balloon: femoral paclitaxel randomized pilot trial. Circulation 118(13), 1358–1365 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Center for Devices, Radiological Health. Ranger paclitaxel-coated PTA balloon catheter – P190019 (2020). www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/ranger-paclitaxel-coated-pta-balloon-catheter-p190019
Google Scholar
6. Nordanstig J, James S, Andersson M et al. Mortality with paclitaxel-coated devices in peripheral artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 383(26), 2538–2546 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Secemsky EA, Kundi H, Weinberg I et al. Association of survival with femoropopliteal artery revascularization with drug-coated devices. JAMA Cardiol. 4(4), 332–340 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Katsanos K, Spiliopoulos S, Paraskevopoulos I et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty in the femoropopliteal arteries: role of paclitaxel dose and bioavailability. J. Endovasc. Ther. 23(2), 356–370 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Ro AJ, Falotico R, Davé V. Microstructure and drug-release studies of sirolimus-containing poly(lactide-co-glycolide) films. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 97(1), 30–39 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Lammer J, Scheinert D, Vermassen F et al. Pharmacokinetic analysis after implantation of everolimus-eluting self-expanding stents in the peripheral vasculature. J. Vasc. Surg. 55(2), 400–405 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Lammer J, Bosiers M, Zeller T et al. First clinical trial of nitinol self-expanding everolimus-eluting stent implantation for peripheral arterial occlusive disease. J. Vasc. Surg. 54(2), 394–401 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Duda SH, Bosiers M, Lammer J et al. Drug-eluting and bare nitinol stents for the treatment of atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery: long-term results from the SIROCCO trial. J. Endovasc. Ther. 13(6), 701–710 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Duda SH, Pusich B, Richter G et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of obstructive superficial femoral artery disease: six-month results. Circulation 106(12), 1505–1509 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Milewski K, Afari ME, Tellez A et al. Evaluation of efficacy and dose response of different paclitaxel-coated balloon formulations in a novel swine model of iliofemoral in-stent restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 5(10), 1081–1088 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Buszman PP, Nowakowski P, Milewski K et al. Clinical randomized trial evaluating novel, microcrystalline, and biocompatible polymer paclitaxel-coated balloon for the treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease: the BIOPAC Trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11(23), 2436–2438 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Radke PW, Joner M, Joost A et al. Vascular effects of paclitaxel following drug-eluting balloon angioplasty in a porcine coronary model: the importance of excipients. Euro Interv. 7(6), 730–737 (2011).
Google Scholar
17. Cremers B, Speck U, Kaufels N et al. Drug-eluting balloon: very short-term exposure and overlapping. Thromb. Haemost. 101(1), 201–206 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Gongora CA, Shibuya M, Wessler JD et al. Impact of paclitaxel dose on tissue pharmacokinetics and vascular healing: a comparative drug-coated balloon study in the familial hypercholesterolemic swine model of superficial femoral in-stent restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 8(8), 1115–1123 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Yazdani SK, Pacheco E, Nakano M et al. Vascular, downstream, and pharmacokinetic responses to treatment with a low dose drug-coated balloon in a swine femoral artery model. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 83(1), 132–140 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Zeller T, Beschorner U, Pilger E et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloon in infrapopliteal arteries: 12-month results from the BIOLUX P-II randomized trial (BIOTRONIK'S-first in man study of the Passeo-18 LUX drug releasing PTA balloon catheter vs. the uncoated Passeo-18 PTA balloon catheter in subjects requiring revascularization of infrapopliteal arteries). JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 8(12), 1614–1622 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Buszman PP, Tellez A, Afari ME et al. Tissue uptake, distribution, and healing response after delivery of paclitaxel via second-generation iopromide-based balloon coating: a comparison with the first-generation technology in the iliofemoral porcine model. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 6(8), 883–890 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Drachman DE, Edelman ER, Seifert P et al. Neointimal thickening after stent delivery of paclitaxel: change in composition and arrest of growth over six months. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 36(7), 2325–2332 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Farb A, Heller PF, Shroff S et al. Pathological analysis of local delivery of paclitaxel via a polymer-coated stent. Circulation 104(4), 473–479 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Wilson GJ, Nakazawa G, Schwartz RS et al. Comparison of inflammatory response after implantation of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in porcine coronary arteries. Circulation 120(2), 141–149; 1–2 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Finn AV, Nakazawa G, Joner M et al. Vascular responses to drug eluting stents: importance of delayed healing. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 27(7), 1500–1510 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Nakazawa G, Finn AV, Joner M et al. Delayed arterial healing and increased late stent thrombosis at culprit sites after drug-eluting stent placement for acute myocardial infarction patients: an autopsy study. Circulation 118(11), 1138–1145 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Nakazawa G, Finn AV, Vorpahl M, Ladich ER, Kolodgie FD, Virmani R. Coronary responses and differential mechanisms of late stent thrombosis attributed to first-generation sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 57(4), 390–398 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A et al. Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 48(1), 193–202 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Katsanos K, Spiliopoulos S, Kitrou P et al. Risk of death following application of paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents in the femoropopliteal artery of the leg: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7(24), e011245 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Sachar R, Soga Y, Ansari MM et al. 1-year results from the RANGER II SFA randomized trial of the Ranger drug-coated balloon. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 14(10), 1123–1133 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Vascular disease Network. Boston Scientific announces positive data for the Ranger^™ drug-coated balloon and the Eluvia^™ drug-eluting vascular stent at VIVA19. www.cathlabdigest.com/content/boston-scientific-announces-positive-data-rangertm-drug-coated-balloon-and-eluviatm-drug-eluting-vascular-stent-viva19 (2019).
Google Scholar
32. Granada JF, Stenoien M, Buszman PP et al. Mechanisms of tissue uptake and retention of paclitaxel-coated balloons: impact on neointimal proliferation and healing. Open Heart 1(1), e000117 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Creel CJ, Lovich MA, Edelman ER. Arterial paclitaxel distribution and deposition. Circ. Res. 86(8), 879–884 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Levin AD, Vukmirovic N, Hwang C-W, Edelman ER. Specific binding to intracellular proteins determines arterial transport properties for rapamycin and paclitaxel. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(25), 9463–9467 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Xu Y, Jia X, Zhang J et al. Drug-coated balloon angioplasty compared with uncoated balloons in the treatment of 200 Chinese patients with severe femoropopliteal lesions: 24-month results of AcoArt I. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11(23), 2347–2353 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Scheinert D, Schulte K-L, Zeller T et al. Paclitaxel-releasing balloon in femoropopliteal lesions using a BTHC excipient: twelve-month results from the BIOLUX P-I randomized trial. J. Endovasc. Ther. 22(1), 14–21 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Albrecht T, Waliszewski M, Roca C et al. Two-year clinical outcomes of the CONSEQUENT trial: can femoropopliteal lesions be treated with sustainable clinical results that are economically sound? Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 41(7), 1008–1014 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Schneider PA, Laird JR, Tepe G et al. Treatment effect of drug-coated balloons is durable to 3 years in the femoropopliteal arteries: long-term results of the In.PACT SFA randomized trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 11(1), e005891 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Scheinert D, Duda S, Zeller T et al. The LEVANT I (Lutonix paclitaxel-coated balloon for the prevention of femoropopliteal restenosis) trial for femoropopliteal revascularization: first-in-human randomized trial of low-dose drug-coated balloon versus uncoated balloon angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7(1), 10–19 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Rosenfield K, Jaff MR, White CJ et al. Trial of a paclitaxel-coated balloon for femoropopliteal artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(2), 145–153 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Iida O, Soga Y, Urasawa K et al. Drug-coated balloon versus uncoated percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for the treatment of atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral and proximal popliteal artery: 2-year results of the MDT-2113 SFA Japan randomized trial. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 93(4), 664–672 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Werk M, Albrecht T, Meyer D-R et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloons reduce restenosis after femoro-popliteal angioplasty: evidence from the randomized PACIFIER trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 5(6), 831–840 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Tepe G, Schnorr B, Albrecht T et al. Angioplasty of femoral-popliteal arteries with drug-coated balloons: 5-year follow-up of the THUNDER Trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 8(1, Part A), 102–108 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Schroeder H, Werner M, Meyer DR, Reimer P. Low-dose paclitaxel-coated versus uncoated percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty for femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease: one-year results of the ILLUMENATE European randomized clinical trial (randomized trial of a novel paclitaxel-coated percutaneous angioplasty balloon). Circulation 135(23), 2227–2236 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Krishnan P, Faries P, Niazi K et al. Stellarex drug-coated balloon for treatment of femoropopliteal disease: twelve-month outcomes from the randomized ILLUMENATE pivotal and pharmacokinetic studies. Circulation 136(12), 1102–1113 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Schroeder H, Werner M, Meyer D-R et al. Low-dose paclitaxel-coated versus uncoated percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty for femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease: one-year results of the ILLUMENATE European randomized clinical trial (randomized trial of a novel paclitaxel-coated percutaneous angioplasty balloon). Circulation 135(23), 2227–2236 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Shishehbor MH, Zeller T, Werner M et al. Randomized trial of chocolate touch compared with lutonix drug-coated balloon in femoropopliteal lesions (Chocolate Touch Study). Circulation 145(22), 1645–1654 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. Teichgräber U, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R et al. Drug-coated balloon angioplasty of femoropopliteal lesions maintained superior efficacy over conventional balloon: 2-year Results of the randomized EffPac trial. Radiology 295(2), 478–487 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Werk M, Langner S, Reinkensmeier B et al. Inhibition of restenosis in femoropopliteal arteries: paclitaxel-coated versus uncoated balloon: femoral paclitaxel randomized pilot trial. Circulation 118(13), 1358–65 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Rosenfield K, Jaff MR, White CJ et al. Trial of a paclitaxel-coated balloon for femoropopliteal artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 145–153 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Steiner S, Willfort-Ehringer A, Sievert H et al. 12-month results from the first-in-human randomized study of the Ranger paclitaxel-coated balloon for femoropopliteal treatment. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 11(10), 934–941 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Holden A, Varcoe RL, Jaff MR et al. Paclitaxel and mortality: the dose argument is critical. J. Endovasc. Ther. 26(4), 467–470 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Steiner S, Schmidt A, Zeller T et al. COMPARE: prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial of high- vs. low-dose paclitaxel drug-coated balloons for femoropopliteal interventions. Eur. Heart J. 41(27), 2541–2552 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Sridharan ND, Boitet A, Smith K et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of drug–coated therapies in the superficial femoral artery. J. Vasc. Surg. 67(1), 343–352 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 19, No. 3

Metrics

Downloaded 82 times

History

Received 4 August 2022

Accepted 13 April 2023

Published online 19 June 2023

Published in print March 2023

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This research was not financially supported. N Sharma reports no disclosures. MT Finn has received speaker fees from Janssen. SA Parikh has received institutional grants/research support from Abbott Vascular, Shockwave Medical, TriReme Medical, Sumodics, Silk Road Medical and the National Institutes of Health; has received consulting fees from Terumo and Abiomed; and has served on the Advisory Boards of Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, CSI, Janssen and Philips. J Granada is the CEO of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, which has received educational grants from B Braun a company involved in the drug-coated balloon field. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download