ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2023
Choosing the right treatment for the right lesion, Part II: a narrative review of drug-coated balloon angioplasty and its evolving role in dialysis access maintenance.
Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of drug-coated balloon versus uncoated balloon for dysfunctional dialysis access: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of the drug-coated balloon-to-predilation balloon diameter ratio on restenosis risk in hemodialysis access: a study of nonlinear association.Renal failure · 2026Article
- Randomized Controlled Study of Sirolimus-Coated Balloons for Dysfunctional Hemodialysis Fistulas.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- Gender Disparities in Secondary Patency of Arteriovenous Fistulas: Insights into Hemodialysis Outcomes and Long-Term Vascular Access Viability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Macrophage pyroptosis inhibition alleviates postinjury neointimal formation and vascular restenosis.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy study of juxta-anastomotic stenosis of the arteriovenous fistula via percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with different accesses to the arteries and veins.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Ultrasound assessment of intimal hyperplasia after plain balloon angioplasty and drug-coated balloon angioplasty of AV access stenosis.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a new Everolimus-coated balloon catheter in an in-vivo porcine peripheral venous model.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
- Dialysis Access Maintenance: Plain Balloon Angioplasty.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Review
- Endovascular and surgical interventions in the end-stage renal disease population.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) seek to inhibit restenosis in treated hemodialysis access lesions by delivering an anti-proliferative agent (paclitaxel) into the vessel wall. While DCBs have proven effective in the coronary and peripheral arterial vasculature, the evidence for their use in arteriovenous (AV) access has been less robust. In part two of this review, a comprehensive overview of DCB mechanisms, implementation, and design is provided, followed by an examination of the evidence basis for their use in AV access stenosis. Methods: An electronic search was performed on PubMed and EMBASE to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCBs and plain balloon angioplasty from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2022 published in English. As part of this narrative review, a review of DCB mechanisms of action, implementation, and design is provided, followed by a review of available RCTs and other studies. Key Content and Findings: Numerous DCBs have been developed, each with unique properties, although the degree to which these differences impact clinical outcomes is unclear. Target lesion preparation, achieved by pre-dilation, and balloon inflation time have proven important factors in achieving optimal DCB treatment. Numerous RCTs have been performed, but have suffered from significant heterogeneity, and have often reported contrasting clinical results, making it difficult to draw conclusions on how to implement DCBs in daily practice. On the whole, it is likely there is a population of patients who benefit from DCB use, but it is unclear which patients benefit most and what device, technical, and procedural factors lead to optimal outcomes. Importantly, DCBs use appears safe in the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population. Conclusions: DCB implementation has been tempered by the lack of clear signal regarding the benefits of DCB use. As further evidence is obtained, it is possible that a precision-based approach to DCBs may shed light onto which patients will truly benefit from DCBs. Until that time, the evidence reviewed herein may serve to guide interventionalists in their decision making, knowing that DCBs appear safe when used in AV access and may provide some benefit in certain patients.
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.