Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38270690›Full record

SynthesisCardiovascular drugs and therapy2025

Comparison Between Drug-Coated Balloon and Stents in Large De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCT Data.

Zhiqiang Ma, Kanling Liu, Yanhui Hu, Xiwen Hu, Binyu Wang, Zhengyi Li

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Zhiqiang MaDivision of Cardiology, Departments of Internal Medicine, Liyuan Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430000, People's Republic of China.
Kanling LiuDivision of Cardiology, Departments of Internal Medicine, Liyuan Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430000, People's Republic of China.
Yanhui HuDivision of Cardiology, Departments of Internal Medicine, Liyuan Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430000, People's Republic of China.
Xiwen HuDivision of Cardiology, Departments of Internal Medicine, Liyuan Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430000, People's Republic of China.
Binyu WangDivision of Cardiology, Departments of Internal Medicine, Liyuan Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430000, People's Republic of China.
Zhengyi LiDivision of Cardiology, Departments of Internal Medicine, Liyuan Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430000, People's Republic of China. zhengyili_hy@sina.com.ORCID 0009-0001-0865-5154

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough a number of studies involving small-vessel de novo coronary disease showed clinical benefits of drug-coated balloons (DCB), the role of DCB in large vessel lesions is still unclear.

methodsWe searched main electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB with stents for large vessel de novo coronary artery disease. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE), composite cardiovascular death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR).

resultsThis study included 7 RCTs with 770 participants. DCB were associated with a marked risk reduction in MACE [Risk Ratio (RR): 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24 to 0.97; P = 0.04], TLR (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.14; P = 0.10), and late lumen loss [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.57; 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.05; P = 0.03] as compared with stents. There is no significant difference in MI (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.54; P = 0.27), CD (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.78; P = 0.19), and minimal lumen diameter (SMD: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.72 to 0.05; P = 0.08) between groups. In subgroup analyses, the risk reduction of MACE persisted in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.89; P = 0.03), and patients receiving DCB vs. bare metal stent (RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.73; P = 0.01). In addition, there was no significant difference between the DCB group and the drug eluting stent group for MACE (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.60; P = 0.38).

conclusionDCB may be an effective therapeutic option in patients with large vessel de novo coronary artery disease.

Indexed as

Angioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCardiac CathetersCoated Materials, BiocompatibleCoronary Artery DiseaseDrug-Eluting StentsStentsHumansProsthesis DesignRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDe novo lesionDrug-coated balloonMajor cardiovascular adverse eventsMeta-analysisStents

Identifiers

PMID38270690
PMCPMC12116820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.