SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Approaches for
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05516446 (Drug Eluting Balloon Angioplasty in Tunisian Population Versus Everolimus Platinum Chrome Stent), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Drug Eluting Balloon Angioplasty in Tunisian Population Versus Everolimus Platinum Chrome Stent
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Strategy for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2023Pooled it
- Drug-coated balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting versus primary stenting for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions: REC-CAGEFREE I trial rationale and design.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Feasibility of emergent reperfusion therapy using paclitaxel-coated balloons for acute coronary syndrome: lessons from the PEBSI Study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
- Drug-Eluting-Balloon Angioplasty in Tunisian population versus Everolimus-platinum-chrome-stent for de-novo coronary lesion.La Tunisie medicaleArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The Method: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were retrieved to include the relevant randomized controlled trials that compared DCB approaches and stents implantation in patients with Result: A total of 26 randomized controlled trials and 4,664 patients were included in this study. The DCB-only strategy was comparable with the efficacy of MACE, clinical outcomes, and binary restenosis compared with DES. In addition, this strategy can significantly reduce the in-segment LLL compared with the first-generation (MD -0.29, -0.49 to -0.12) and the second-generation DES (MD -0.15, -0.27 to -0.026). However, subgroup analysis suggested that DCB only was associated with higher in-segment LLL than DES (MD 0.33, 0.14 to 0.51) in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Compared with DES, the DCB+BMS strategy had a similar incidence of myocardial infarction and all-cause death, but a higher incidence of MACE, TLR, and angiographic outcomes. In addition, DCB+BMS was associated with a similar incidence of myocardial infarction and all-cause death than BMS, with a lower incidence of MACE, TLR, and angiographic outcomes. Conclusion: The DCB only is associated with similar efficacy and lower risk of LLL compared with DES. In addition, the DCB+BMS strategy is superior to BMS alone but inferior to DES (PROSPERO, CRD 42021257567). Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
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.