Multi-center, Open-label, Prospective, Randomized Study to Show Long-term Efficacy of DCB Treatment With Bail-out BRS in Comparison to BRS Treatment of De-novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions in a Relatively Young PCI Population.

The goal of this study is to investigate the equivalence in early and long-term efficacy between the two "Leave nothing behind strategies" (Drug-Coated Baloon [DCB] strategy with bail-out BioResorbable Scaffold [BRS] versus BRS strategy) of de-novo native coronary artery lesions in a relatively young Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) population, to be more specific, Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndromes (CCS) and Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) (Non-ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction [NSTEMI] and Unstable angina) between 18-68 years of age scheduled for PCI. The main questions aim to answer are:

DCB strategy with bail-out BRS implantation has equivalent clinical outcomes at 12 months compared to BRS strategy? DCB strategy with bail-out BRS implantation has noninferior angiographic in-segment net gain at 13 months compared to BRS strategy? DCB strategy with bail-out BRS implantation has equivalent clinical outcomes at 60 months compared to BRS strategy?

Participants will be followed at:

1. st FU visit - 1 month (in hospital)
2. nd FU visit - 6 months (telephone)
3. rd FU visit - 365 days±15 days (telephone) - 1Y Primary efficacy endpoint
4. th FU visit - 395 days±15 days (in hospital) co-primary efficacy endpoint for the angiographic substudy
5. th FU visit - 730 days±30 days (telephone call) - 2Y
6. th FU visit - 1095 days±30 days (telephone call) - 3Y
7. th FU visit - 1460 days±30 days (telephone call) - 4Y
8. th FU visit- 1825 days±30 days (telephone call) - 5Y