ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2023
Randomized Pilot Study to Compare DCB-Based versus DST-Based Strategies for the Treatment of True or Complex Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.
Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Drug-Coated Balloons for De Novo Non-aorto-ostial and Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Drug-Coated Balloons in All-Comer Population-Are We There Yet?Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Background: Dual stenting technique (DST) is still mandatory for some true bifurcation lesions (BLs), but drug-coated balloon (DCB) alone may offer a new optional treatment with the potential benefits of fewer implants. However, procedural safety presents a concern when using DCB-only to treat true BLs. This study sought to explore the safety and efficacy of the DCB-only strategy for the treatment of true BLs. Methods: Sixty patients with TBLs were randomly assigned to be treated by a DCB-based strategy or DST-based strategy. All patients received angiographic follow-up scheduled after one-year and staged clinical follow-up. The primary endpoint was the one-year late lumen loss (LLL) and cumulative major cardiac adverse events (MACEs) composed of cardiac death (CD), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), target lesion thrombosis (TVT), or target vessel/lesion revascularization (TLR/TVR). The secondary endpoint was the one-year minimal lumen diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis percentage (DSP) or binary restenosis (BRS), and each MACE component. Results: The baseline clinical and lesioncharacteristics were comparable with similar proportions (20.0% vs. 23.3%, Conclusions: Compared to the DST strategy, the DCB- based strategy may be safe and effective in treatment of the selected true BLs. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical registration number is ChiCTR1900024914.
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.