ArticleJournal of interventional cardiology2021
In Vitro and In Vivo Comparative Evaluation of a Shellac-Ammonium Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon versus a Benchmark Device.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photo-triggered NO combined with photobiomodulation promotes endothelial repair after balloon angioplasty.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons Versus Sirolimus-Coated Balloons for Coronary Artery Lesions: A Nationwide Cohort Study From SCAAR.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present study was designed to compare the characteristics and performance regarding drug delivery of a novel drug-coated balloon (DCB) to a benchmark device (Restore® versus SeQuent® Please) in an in vitro and in vivo model.
backgroundAlthough Restore® and SeQuent® are both paclitaxel-coated, they use different coating excipient, shellac-ammonium salt and iopromide, respectively. Preclinical study comparing these two different commercial DCBs regarding their characteristics and effects on early vascular response is sparse.
methodsRestore® and SeQuent® DCBs were scanned with electron microscopy for surface characteristic assessment. Both DCBs were transported in an in vitro vessel model for the evaluation of drug wash-off rate and particulate formation. Eighteen coronary angioplasties with either Restore® or SeQuent® DCBs were conducted in 6 swine (three coronary vessels each). Histopathological images of each vessel were evaluated for vessel injury.
resultsThe surface of Restore® DCB was smooth and evenly distributed with hardly visible crystal, while SeQuent® DCB showed a rougher surface with relatively larger apparent crystals. Restore® DCB had a lower drug wash-off rate and fewer large visible particles, compared to the SeQuent® DCB. No significant difference in mean injure score was found between Restore® and SeQuent® group.
conclusionOur results suggest that Restore® is better in preclinical performance regarding less release of particles and lower drug wash-off rate as compared to SeQuent® Please. The Restore® DCB, using stable amorphous coating and shellac-ammonium salt as an excipient, appears to provide an advantage in drug delivery efficacy; however, further clinical studies are warranted.
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.