Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32076567›Full record

ArticleOpen heart2020

Performing percutaneous coronary interventions with predilatation using non-compliant balloons at high-pressure versus conventional semi-compliant balloons: insights from two randomised studies using optical coherence tomography.

Florim Cuculi, Matthias Bossard, Wojciech Zasada, Federico Moccetti, Michiel Voskuil, Mathias Wolfrum, Krzysztof Piotr Malinowski, Stefan Toggweiler, Richard Kobza

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

NCT03518645 nacompletednot on this map

Optimal Lesion Preparation With Non-compliant Balloons for the Implantation of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) -OPRENBIS Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorKCRIRan2015 to 2018Enrolled43ConditionsCoronary Artery Disease, Angina, Unstable, Angina, StableArmsOPN strategy, standard strategy
NCT05346068 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

The Value of IVL Compared To OPN Non-Compliant Balloons for Treatment of RefractorY Coronary Lesions (VICTORY) Trial - A Randomized, Multicenter, Non-inferiority Comparison of Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy (IVL) and the OPN Non-compliant Balloon for Treatment of Calcified and Refractory Coronary Lesions

TypeinterventionalSponsorLuzerner KantonsspitalRan2022 to 2028Enrolled280ConditionsCoronary Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, Calcific Coronary Arteriosclerosis, Stent RestenosisArmsOPN™ NCB Super High Pressure PCI Balloon, Shockwave™ C2 IVL Catheter
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Safety aspects ofFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Dedicated Balloon Techniques for Coronary Calcium Modification.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Clinical Outcomes of a Non-Compliant Balloon Dilatation Catheter: MOZEC™ NC Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Florim Cuculi *Cardiology Division, Heart Center, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.
Matthias Bossard *Cardiology Division, Heart Center, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1587-2819
Wojciech ZasadaKrakow Cardiovascular Research Institute (KCRI), Krakow, Poland.
Federico MoccettiCardiology Division, Heart Center, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.
Michiel VoskuilDepartment of Cardiology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mathias WolfrumCardiology Division, Heart Center, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.
Krzysztof Piotr MalinowskiInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Stefan ToggweilerCardiology Division, Heart Center, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.
Richard KobzaCardiology Division, Heart Center, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.
Luzerner Kantonsspital · CHJagiellonian University · PLKrakow Cardiovascular Research Institute · PLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Stent underexpansion is a predictor of in-stent-restenosis and stent thrombosis. Semi-compliant balloons (SCBs) are generally used for lesion preparation. It remains unknown whether routine predilatation using non-compliant balloons (NCBs) improves stent expansion in ordinary coronary lesions. Methods: The PREdilatation by high-pressure NC balloon catheter for better vessel preparation and Optimal lesion preparation with non-compliant balloons for the implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds studies randomised patients presenting with stable coronary artery disease or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction requiring stent implantation to lesion preparation using NCBs versus SCBs. Stent expansion index (SEI-minimal luminal area/mean luminal area on optical coherence tomography) and periprocedural complications were compared. Results: We enrolled 104 patients: 53 patients (54 lesions) vs 51 patients (56 lesions) to the NCB and SCB groups, respectively. Predilatation pressure was higher in the NCB group (24±7 atmospheres (atm) vs 14±3 atm, p<0.0001). Postdilatation using NCBs was performed in 41 (76%) lesions vs 46 (82%) lesions pretreated with NCBs versus SCBs (p=0.57). Similar pressures were used for postdilatation with NCB in both groups (23±8 atm vs 23±9 atm, p=0.65). SEI after stent implantation was 0.88±0.13 in the NCB vs 0.85±0.14 in the SCB group (p=0.18). After postdilatation, SEI increased to 0.94±0.13 in the NCB group vs 0.88±0.13 in the SCB group (p=0.02). No relevant complications occurred. Conclusions: In simple coronary lesions, predilatation/postdilatation with NCBs at high pressures appears to result in better scaffold and stent expansion. Using SCBs only for predilatation might lead to inadequate stent expansion and postdilatation with NCBs might only partially correct this. Predilatation and postdilatation using NCBs at high pressure is safe. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT03518645.

Indexed as

Absorbable ImplantsCardiac CathetersStentsTomography, Optical CoherenceAgedAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNon-ST Elevated Myocardial InfarctionPredictive Value of TestsPressureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAngioplastyLesion preparationOptical coherence tomographyPercutaneous coronary interventionScaffoldStent

Identifiers

PMID32076567
PMCPMC6999685
OpenAlexW3000929166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.