Sirolimus and paclitaxel-coated balloons show similar outcomes for coronary in-stent restenosis

Despite advances in percutaneous coronary procedures, in-stent restenosis remains a significant challenge. Although sirolimus- and paclitaxel-coated balloons are promising alternatives, their comparative safety and efficacy remain uncertain. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using relevant keywords from inception until August 2025. A total of 11 studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational cohort studies) were included, comprising 3633 participants overall. The primary outcomes assessed were target lesion revascularization and target lesion failure. Meanwhile, the Secondary outcomes included stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiovascular events, survival, binary restenosis, and angiographic endpoints (acute gain, diameter stenosis, in-segment late lumen loss, in-lesion late lumen loss, and in-segment minimal lumen diameter). Interstudy heterogeneity was assessed using I ² and X ² statistics ( I ²>50% = significant heterogeneity). Interstudy heterogeneity was low for most outcomes, including all primary clinical endpoints, with moderate heterogeneity observed only for select angiographic measures (notably in-segment late lumen loss and diameter stenosis). Statistical analysis was conducted using R software and RStudio (version 4.4.2), with a P value of < 0.05 indicating statistical significance. This meta-analysis examined studies that compared paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) versus standard balloon [sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB)] angioplasty. Regarding primary outcomes, there were no notable variations in target lesion failure [risk ratio (RR), 1.08, 95% CI, 0.90-1.29, P = 0.36] or target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.16, 95% CI, 0.98-1.37, P = 0.08). With all aggregated estimates being nonsignificant, secondary outcomes such as stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiovascular events, and survival were similar between groups. Angiographic endpoints revealed no discernible variations in late lumen loss (in-lesion and in-segment), acute gain, or diameter stenosis. Nonetheless, the SCB group's minimal lumen diameter was significantly smaller than that of the PCB group (MD, -0.08 mm, 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.01, P = 0.02). In treating coronary in-stent restenosis, SCB and PCBs show similar overall safety and effectiveness; lesion-specific angiographic variations indicate that customized selection may improve patient outcomes.