Trial reportHeart and vessels2016
Impact of drug-eluting balloon (pre- or post-) dilation on neointima formation in de novo lesions treated by bare-metal stent: the IN-PACT CORO trial.
Trial report in Heart and vessels, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01057563 (IN-PACT CORO INtimal hyPerplasia evAluated by oCT in de Novo COROnary Lesions Treated by Drug-eluting Balloon and Bare-metal Stent), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
IN-PACT CORO INtimal hyPerplasia evAluated by oCT in de Novo COROnary Lesions Treated by Drug-eluting Balloon and Bare-metal Stent
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Yonsei medical journal · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Approaches forFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Drug-eluting balloons with provisional bail-out or adjunctive stenting inCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2018Article
- Drug-Eluting Balloons in the Treatment of Coronary De Novo Lesions: A Comprehensive Review.Cardiology and therapy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThe efficacy of DEB in modifying the high restenosis risk associated with BMS implantation is doubtful. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) may allow precise assessment of neointimal formation after stent implantation. We performed a single-center, prospective, 1:2 randomized trial comparing BMS implantation alone (BMS group) vs. additional DEB (DEB group). DEB patients were further randomized 1:1 to DEB before stenting (pre-DEB group), or after stenting (post-DEB group). Primary endpoint was OCT-assessed neointimal hyperplasia (expressed both as mean in-stent neointimal area and as percentage obstruction of the mean stent area) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of uncovered and malapposed stent struts. Thirty patients were enrolled and randomized to BMS (n = 10), pre-DEB (n = 10), post-DEB (n = 10). At 6-month OCT follow-up, DEB significantly reduced neointimal area compared with BMS: mean neointimal area 2.01 ± 0.89 vs. 3.03 ± 1.07 mm(2) (p = 0.02), percentage area obstruction 24.56 ± 12.50 vs. 37.51 ± 12.26 % (p = 0.02). The percentage of uncovered and malapposed stent struts did not differ significantly between BMS and DEB. In the comparison between pre-DEB and post-DEB, no significant difference was observed for both primary and secondary endpoints. In de novo coronary lesions treated with BMS, DEB use could be associated with a mild reduction in neointimal hyperplasia at 6 months; this effect could be unrelated to the timing of DEB dilation (pre- or post-stenting). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Identifier: NCT01057563.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.