ArticleScientific reports2024
Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for femoropopliteal total occlusions: intraluminal versus subintimal approaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02748226 (Korean Vascular Intervention Society Multicenter Registry Study on Outcomes of Endovascular Therapy in Lower Limb Artery Diseases), which is not on this 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.
Korean Vascular Intervention Society Multicenter Registry Study on Outcomes of Endovascular Therapy in Lower Limb Artery Diseases (K-VIS ELLA): (A Retrospective & Prospective Observational Study)
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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because there is a lack of comparative studies assessing drug-coated balloon (DCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) outcomes with respect to intraluminal (IL) and subintimal (SI) approaches in femoropopliteal (FP) total occlusive lesions, we compared the outcomes between DCB (including bailout stenting) and DES treatments for this lesion. A total of 487 limbs (434 patients) were divided into the IL (n = 344, DCB: n = 268, DES: n = 76) and SI (n = 143, DCB: n = 83, DES: n = 60) approach groups. The primary outcome was a major adverse limb event (MALE), defined as above-ankle amputation or repeat revascularization of the index limb. Secondary outcomes included clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), loss of clinical patency, and all-cause death. After adjustment, in each IL and SI approach, the 2-year rates of MALE (p = 0.180 and p = 0.236, respectively), TLR, loss of clinical patency, and all-cause death were similar between the DCB and DES groups. In the DCB and DES groups, both primary and secondary outcomes were similar between the IL and SI approaches. DCB and DES strategies for patients presenting with FP total occlusive lesions demonstrated similar outcomes regardless of the IL or SI approach.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02748226.
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.