Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29499651›Full record

SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2018

Comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lulu Liu, Bin Liu, Jiajun Ren, Gang Hui, Chao Qi, Junnan Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

6 authors.

Lulu LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Jilin University, No. 218 Ziqiang Street, Changchun, 130041, China.
Bin LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Jilin University, No. 218 Ziqiang Street, Changchun, 130041, China.
Jiajun RenDepartment of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Jilin University, No. 218 Ziqiang Street, Changchun, 130041, China.
Gang HuiDepartment of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Jilin University, No. 218 Ziqiang Street, Changchun, 130041, China.
Chao QiDepartment of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Jilin University, No. 218 Ziqiang Street, Changchun, 130041, China.
Junnan WangDepartment of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Jilin University, No. 218 Ziqiang Street, Changchun, 130041, China. jdeywjn@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1788-989X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug-eluting balloons (DEB) have significant value for treating coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the merits of using DEB versus drug-eluting stents (DES) to treat CAD remain controversial. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of DEB and DES for treatment of CAD.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases for eligible trials comparing DEB with DES for treatment of CAD. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE); the secondary endpoints included in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL), binary restenosis (BR), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and mortality.

resultsTwenty-three trials with a total of 2712 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of MACE between the DEB and DES groups (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.87, 1.63); P = 0.27), or in the clinical outcomes of each of MACE's components, including TLR, MI and mortality. However, efficacy was significantly different between the DEB and DES groups, especially when we compared DEB to second-generation DES: in-lesion LLL (Mean Difference (MD) 0.11; (0.01, 0.22); P = 0.03); binary restenosis (RR 1.46; (1.00, 2.13); P = 0.05).

conclusionsDEB is equivalent to DES in terms of safety for managing CAD, and DEB may be considered as an alternative choice for treatment of CAD.

Indexed as

Cardiac CathetersCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDrug-Eluting StentsAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisHumansMyocardial InfarctionProsthesis DesignRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCoated Materials, BiocompatibleCoronary artery diseaseDrug-eluting balloonDrug-eluting stentMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID29499651
PMCPMC5834842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.