ArticleYonsei medical journal2023
Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for De Novo Coronary Lesions.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Other Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Pooled it
- Drug-coated balloon vs drug-eluting stent in de novo coronary lesions: a propensity score matched cohort study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Drug-Coated Balloon-Based Versus Drug-Eluting Stent-Only Treatment for Large Vessel Coronary Artery Disease.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Very Late Coronary Thrombosis After Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment: An Old Problem With a New Therapy.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of safety and efficacy of different endovascular treatments for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: results from a single center.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Comparison of angiographic change in side-branch ostium after drug-coated balloon vs. drug-eluting stent vs. medication for the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeData are limited on the long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in comparison to drug-eluting stent (DES) for de novo coronary lesions. We investigated the long-term clinical outcomes of DCB treatment in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo coronary lesions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 103 patients scheduled for elective PCI for de novo non-small coronary lesions (≥2.5 mm) who were successfully treated with DCB alone were retrospectively compared with 103 propensity-matched patients treated with second-generation DES from the PTRG-DES registry (n=13160). All patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events [MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, target lesion thrombosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major bleeding] at 5 years.
resultsAt 5-year clinical follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rate of MACE were significantly lower in the DCB group [2.9% vs. 10.7%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.96; log-rank
conclusionAt 5-year follow-up, DCB treatment was significantly associated with reduced incidences of MACE and TVR, compared with DES implantation, for de novo coronary lesions.
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.