SynthesisClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2025
Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo large vessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 2888 patients.
Synthesis in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Drug Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With De Novo Coronary Artery Disease.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of a sirolimus-eluting balloon with phospholipid nanocarriers in the treatment of long de novo coronary artery disease: the prospective GINGER trial.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Impact of Plaque Morphology on Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment Outcomes for Coronary Calcified Lesions: An Optical Coherence Tomography Analysis.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of the efficacy of rotational coronary atherectomy with drug-coated balloon and drug-eluting stent for severe calcified coronary artery disease.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Expanding the Role of Drug-Coated Balloons in Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Start of the Next Revolution or Just One More Weapon in a Growing Arsenal?Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Case Report: Three cases of drug-coated balloon-only strategy for coronary artery lesions with aneurysms in the chronic phase.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Paclitaxel- and Sirolimus-Coated Drug-Coated Balloons versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPRArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDrug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, data regarding performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD) is still lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to January 24, 2024, for studies which compared the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels (≥ 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death (ACD), and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random effects model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsA total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2888 patients (DCB n = 1334; DES n = 1533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. No differences were observed between DCB and DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40-1.34]; p = 0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57-1.07]; p = 0.12), and LLL (MD - 0.14; 95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02]; p = 0.10) at follow-up. DES proved a higher mean acute gain versus DCB [1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60); p = 0.0006].
conclusionOur meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a "metal-free" strategy in this subset of CAD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38958753What 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.