ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Short-term outcomes of drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravascular lithotripsy for recurrent restenosis caused by a calcified nodule in a saphenous vein graft: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of risk factors for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary heart disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: Current Challenges and a Review of the Contemporary Percutaneous Options for Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As a device for percutaneous coronary intervention, drug-coated balloon (DCB) is widely used to treat in-stent restenosis. However, data regarding the use of DCB in treating Methods: This retrospective and observational study analyzed CHD patients with Results: We enrolled 31 and 23 patients treated with DCB and DES, respectively. The baseline clinical data, lesion characteristics, and procedural characteristics were similar between the two groups. Twenty-eight (90.3%) patients in the DCB group and 21 (91.3%) in the DES group completed follow-up angiography after 1 year. The quantitative coronary angiography measurements at angiographic follow-up showing late lumen loss were -0.07 ± 0.95 mm for the DCB group and 0.86 ± 0.71 mm for the DES group ( Conclusion: Our findings suggest that when pre-dilatation was successful, DCB might be safe and effective in treating
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.