ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2024
Retrospective analysis on diameters of drug-coated balloons and predilatation balloons in infra-inguinal endovascular treatment (RABBIT study).
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2024. 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.
- Standard and Non-standard Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Ischemic Heart Disease and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Clinical Review.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Acute Cardiovascular Care.Circulation reports · 2025Review
- Antithrombotic Management in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Clinical Review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This multicenter retrospective study assessed the clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy (EVT) using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) that was larger than the predilatation balloons for femoropopliteal artery lesions. We analyzed 1140 cases with symptomatic peripheral artery disease that underwent EVT with DCB for femoropopliteal lesions between 2017 and 2021. The primary endpoint was procedural failure, defined as a composite of deteriorated dissection and bailout stenting. The secondary endpoints included deteriorated dissection, bailout stenting, restenosis, and target lesion revascularization. We performed propensity score matching to compare the clinical outcomes between EVT with a DCB which was larger than the predilatation balloon (larger DCB) and EVT with a DCB which was not (nonlarger DCB). We assigned 276 cases to the larger DCB group and 864 cases to the nonlarger DCB group. Procedural failure was observed in 75 cases, whereas restenosis occurred in 282 cases during a mean follow-up period of 12.7 ± 9.7 months. Propensity score matching extracted 273 pairs with no intergroup difference in baseline characteristics, except the predilatation balloon size. Procedural failure (9.2% versus 6.1%, P = 0.11), deteriorated dissection and bailout stenting proportion (both P > 0.05), and 1-year rates of freedom from restenosis (82.4% versus 84.1%, P = 0.59) and target lesion revascularization (89.7% versus 90.4%, P = 0.83) showed no significant difference between the larger and nonlarger DCB groups. Irrespective of whether the DCB size was larger than the predilatation balloon, no difference was observed in either procedural or clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38632168What 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.