SynthesisPloS one2017
Drug-eluting balloon versus bare-mental stent and drug-eluting stent for de novo coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug-Coated Balloons versus Drug-Eluting Stents for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Strategy for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Approaches forFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent in de novo small coronary vessel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery for Vascular Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Elastic Fiber Fragmentation Increases Transmural Hydraulic Conductance and Solute Transport in Mouse Arteries.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2019Article
- Comprehensive analysis of predictive factors for rapid angiographic stenotic progression and restenosis risk in coronary artery disease patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents implantation.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
- Drug-Eluting Balloons and Drug-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of Peripheral Vascular Disease.Seminars in interventional radiology · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug-eluting balloon (DEB) has become an alternative option to drug-eluting stent (DES) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, the effect of drug-eluting balloon with regular bare-mental stent (BMS) in de novo coronary artery disease (CAD) is unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DEB with regular BMS compared to BMS or DES in de novo CAD.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of DEB+BMS in comparison with BMS or DES were obtained by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through January 2016. Primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and late lumen loss (LLL). Secondary endpoints included death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), binary restenosis, and minimum lumen diameter (MLD). Dichotomous and continuous data were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively, and analyzed using a random-effects model.
resultsA total of 14 RCTs involving 2281 patients were included in this meta-analysis. DEB+BMS showed significantly less MACEs (OR: 0.67, 95%CI 0.45 to 0.99, P = 0.04) and reduced LLL (MD: -0.30 mm, 95%CI: -0.48 mm to -0.11 mm, P = 0.001) compared with BMS. Meanwhile, treatment with DEB+BMS had disadvantages over DES in terms of MACEs (OR: 1.94, 95%CI 1.24 to 3.05, P = 0.004), LLL (MD: 0.20 mm, 95%CI: 0.07 mm to 0.33 mm, P = 0.003), TLR (OR: 2.53, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.72, P = 0.003), and MLD (MD: -0.25 mm, 95%CI: -0.42 mm to -0.09 mm, P = 0.003).
conclusionsThis limited evidence demonstrated that treatment with DEB+BMS appears to be effective in de novo CAD. In addition, DEB+ BMS clearly showed superiority to BMS, but is inferior to DES in the treatment of patients with de novo CAD. Hence, DES (especially new generation DES) should be recommended for patients with de novo CAD.
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.