Observational studyHeart and vessels2016
Comparison between drug-coated balloon angioplasty and second-generation drug-eluting stent placement for the treatment of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation.
Observational study in Heart and vessels, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Drug-Eluting Balloon versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Chinese medical journal · 2018Pooled it
- Differences in clinical outcomes between pre- and post-marketing clinical study following paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis: from the Japanese regulatory viewpoint.Heart and vessels · 2021Trial
- Safety of drug-eluting stent in Chinese population with or without diabetes: a multi-center registry study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Observational
- Comparison of Different PCI Strategies for Coronary DES In-stent Restenosis: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Coronary Stent Fracture Causing Myocardial Infarction: Case Report and Review of Literature.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Value of S100A12 in predicting in-stent restenosis in patients with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Drug-Eluting Balloons versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Treating In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Heart Disease after PCI: A Meta-Analysis.Cardiology research and practice · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Even though drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty has emerged as a treatment option for drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES-ISR), the most effective treatment strategy for DES-ISR is still under debate. Therefore, we compared long-term clinical outcomes following DCB treatment of DES-ISR with those following 2nd-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment. We identified 248 DES-ISR lesions in 238 patients that were treated with either 2nd-generation DES implantation (n = 56) or DCB angioplasty (n = 192). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in the two groups during the 2-year period following treatment. MACE was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization. The percentage of patients with diabetes and the mean age of patients in the DCB group were greater than in the DES group. The DCB group also had a smaller reference vessel diameter. The DES group had a larger post-intervention minimal luminal diameter. We found no significant difference in the MACE rate between the two groups during the 2 years following treatment (11.0 % in the DCB group vs. 8.9 % in the DES group, p = 0.660). Reference segment diameter was the only independent predictive factor for MACE in the post-treatment period (hazard ratio 0.35, 95 % confidence interval: 0.15-0.82, p = 0.016). Clinical efficacy of DCB angioplasty for treatment of DES-ISR was comparable to that of 2nd-generation DES implantation as measured by the rate of MACEs in the two groups. Reference segment diameter was the only statistically significant independent predictor for MACE in the 2-year period following treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26337620What 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.