Copyright
©The Author(s) 2026. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Methodol. Mar 20, 2026; 16(1): 111566
Published online Mar 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i1.111566
Published online Mar 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i1.111566
Sirolimus vs paclitaxel-coated balloons in in-stent coronary restenosis: A meta-analysis
Debvarsha Mandal, Department of Internal Medicine, Avalon University School of Medicine, Willemstad 4797, Netherlands
Thomas Viji Pulickal, Department of Internal Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar 750017, India
Dhritika Ahlawat, Department of Internal Medicine, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh 0172, Chandīgarh, India
Wasiullah Haqbeen, Haroon Alamy, Department of Cardiology, Kabul University of Medical Sciences, Kabul 20, Afghanistan
Izma Kashif, Department of Cardiology, University College of Medicine and Dentistry, Lahore 05450, Punjab, Pakistan
Pramoda Prattipati, Department of Internal Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi 0831, India
Padmavathi Jaladi, Department of Internal Medicine, S Nijalingappa Medical College, HSK Hospital and Research Centre, Bagalkot 587101, India
Paula Kabiaru, Department of Cardiology, University of Nairobi School of Medicine, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Anjali Avula, Department of Cardiology, Guntur Medical College, Guntur 522001, India
Sandeep Kshetri, Department of Internal Medicine, Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara 33700, Nepal
Irum Raza, Department of Internal Medicine, Shalamar Medical College, Lahore 05450, Punjab, Pakistan
Samir Shamieh, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman 11110-17198, Jordan
Rejina Chhetri, Department of Cardiology, Nepalgunj Medical College, Kohalpur, Banke, Kohal 21900, Nepal
Co-first authors: Debvarsha Mandal and Thomas Viji Pulickal.
Author contributions: Mandal D, Pulickal VT, and Chhetri R designed research; Ahlawat D, Haqbeen W, and Kashif I performed research; Alamy H and Prattipati P contributed new reagents or analytic tools; Jaladi P and Kabiaru P validated data; Avula A and Kshetri S analyzed data; Mandal D, Pulickal VT, and Raza I curated data; Ahlawat D, Kashif I, and Shamieh S wrote the paper; Prattipati P, Avula A, and Chhetri R reviewed and edited the paper; Jaladi P and Kshetri S created visualizations; Chhetri R supervised research; Kabiaru P, Shamieh S, and Chhetri R managed project administration; All authors read and reviewed the manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors declare no conflict of interest related to this study.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Rejina Chhetri, MD, Department of Cardiology, Nepalgunj Medical College, Kohalpur, Banke, Nepalgunj Medical College Chisapani Banke Baijanath 1 Chisapani, Kohal 21900, Nepal. rejinachhetri01@gmail.com
Received: July 3, 2025
Revised: August 6, 2025
Accepted: August 28, 2025
Published online: March 20, 2026
Processing time: 222 Days and 16.2 Hours
Revised: August 6, 2025
Accepted: August 28, 2025
Published online: March 20, 2026
Processing time: 222 Days and 16.2 Hours
Core Tip
Core Tip: This meta-analysis systematically compares sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) and paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) for treating coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). Synthesizing data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies, the findings demonstrate no significant differences between SCBs and PCBs in efficacy or safety outcomes, including target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events. These results support flexible clinical use of either DCB type for ISR, while highlighting the need for further research into long-term outcomes and high-risk patient subgroups.