ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2024
A Comparison of 2 Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Systems in Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of de novo lesions, drug-coated balloons (DCB) have been shown to be a promising strategy to improve clinical outcomes of patients with small vessel disease. Evidence of this strategy in PCI of de novo coronary lesions in a real-world setting is limited. The objective of this study was to compare the 12-month outcomes of 2 paclitaxel-coated balloon systems for the treatment of all de novo coronary artery lesions. Methods: All patients who were treated for de novo coronary artery stenosis with either SeQuent Please or In.Pact Falcon DCB at a single center from January 2014 to December 2018 were included. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (3-point major adverse cardiovascular events) at 12 months. Results: A total of 496 patients with 623 lesions, of which 144 were treated with SeQuent Please and 352 were treated with In.Pact Falcon were included in the study. Baseline patient, lesion and procedural characteristics at baseline were similar between groups. At 12-month follow-up, 3-point major adverse cardiovascular event outcomes were similar (4.2% vs 2.3% respectively; Conclusions: Both paclitaxel DCB systems have similar efficacy and safety outcomes, suggesting that both may be an appropriate treatment choice for patients with de novo lesions. However, a larger randomized controlled study is needed to confirm these findings.
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.