ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2023
The Current Use of Drug-Eluting Balloons and Stents in Peripheral Arterial Disease: An Online Survey by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plain balloon angioplasty +/- bare metal stenting versus drug-coated balloon angioplasty +/- bare metal stenting versus primary drug-eluting stenting in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: BASIL-3, an open-label, three-arm, randomised, multi-centre, phase 3 trial.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- Plain versus drug balloon and stenting in severe ischaemia of the leg (BASIL-3): open label, three arm, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the current use of drug-eluting devices for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) among interventional radiologists following the controversy caused by the 2018 meta-analysis suggesting an increased mortality risk for paclitaxel-eluting devices.
methodsAn anonymous survey was sent to 7035 CIRSE members via email; only complete responses were included and statistically analysed.
resultsThree hundred and seven members (4.4%) completed the survey. Among these, 95.8% indicated that they personally perform peripheral vascular procedures. Thirty-eight percentage of respondents did not see any change of practice since 2018, while 47% reported that the use of drug-eluting devices decreased; for 13%, the use stopped altogether, while it increased in 3% of responses. 45.6% of respondents also felt the impact of the controversy in terms of pricing, availability or directives from hospital administration. A large majority of respondents (83.7%) who perform peripheral vascular procedures consider the use of these devices as safe, 12.9% were undecided and 3.4% did not consider them as safe. Among the respondents who do not perform endovascular procedures, 77% considered these devices as safe and 23% were undecided.
conclusionAlthough the 2018 meta-analysis had a disruptive impact on the use of drug-eluting devices in PAD, with the increasing body of evidence available, a majority of respondents continue to believe in the safety of these devices for use in femoropopliteal disease.
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.