ReviewHeart international2019
What are the Pathological Concerns and Limitations of Current Drug-coated Balloon Technology?
Review in Heart international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevention of in-stent restenosis with drug-eluting balloons in patients with postirradiated carotid stenosis accepting percutaneous angioplasty and stenting.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2023Trial
- Drug-Coated Balloons for Coronary Artery Disease: From Theory to Practice.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Towards the Integration of an Anti-Contractile Compound Within Drug-Coated Balloon Therapy.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2025Article
- Assessing paclitaxel-coatedWorld journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Plaque heterogeneity and the spatial distributions of its components dictate drug-coated balloon therapy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Drug-Coated Balloon in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of endovascular therapy for peripheral artery disease and coronary artery disease has increased and spread worldwide and is considered as the foremost, guideline-based invasive treatment. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) utilise anti-proliferative drugs similar to drug-eluting stents; however, the do not leave any permanent metallic scaffold. Excipients and drug formulations play a crucial role in innovative DCB technologies and allow for treatment of lesions where stents are not suitable. Although the significance of downstream embolic effects after DCB use remains uncertain, several preclinical studies suggest such side effects might pose safety concerns. Recently, a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of paclitaxel devices suggested an association between increased mortality and paclitaxel device use. Subsequently, unfavourable criticism of paclitaxel devices attracted much attention and gave rise to a discussion about the safety of such devices. In this review, we will focus on the novel DCB technologies from the standpoint of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as discuss current controversies regarding the increase in death rates from paclitaxel-coated DCBs versus control devices seen in a recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials.
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.