Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26337620›Full record

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.

In Sook Kang, Islam Shehata, Dong-Ho Shin, Jung-Sun Kim, Byeong-Keuk Kim, Young-Guk Ko, Donghoon Choi, Yangsoo Jang, Myeong-Ki Hong

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Comparison of Different PCI Strategies for Coronary DES In-stent Restenosis: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

In Sook KangCardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Islam ShehataDepartment of Cardiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Dong-Ho ShinCardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jung-Sun KimCardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Byeong-Keuk KimCardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young-Guk KoCardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Donghoon ChoiCardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yangsoo JangCardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Myeong-Ki HongCardiovascular Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. mkhong61@yuhs.ac.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cardiac CathetersCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDrug-Eluting StentsAgedAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCardiovascular AgentsCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionCardiovascular AgentsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleAngioplastyCoronary artery diseaseRestenosisStent

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.