ReviewCureus2024
Treatment of Patients With De Novo Small-Vessel Coronary Lesions: Analysis of Six Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are indicated for the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions. Since the evidence comparing these two types of devices is limited, we undertook a meta-analysis on this issue. Our meta-analysis compared the efficacy of PCB vs. DES in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary lesions of size ≤ 2.75 mm. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The two treatments under comparison were PCB vs DES; the endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Our statistical methods were based on the reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves using the IPDfromKM algorithm. After this reconstruction, our statistical calculations included hazard ratio (HR) estimation with a 95% confidence interval (CI), assessment of between-trial heterogeneity, and risk of bias for each RCT. Our literature search identified six RCTs that met our inclusion criteria (PICCOLETO, BELLO, RESTORE SVD, BASKET-SMALL2, PICCOLETO-II, and DISSOLVE). In our main analysis, the six treatment groups using PCB were compared with the six control groups using DES. The results showed an HR of 1.029 (95%CI, 0.7446 to 1.422; P=0.86) over a follow-up of 36 months. Heterogeneity analysis across the six control groups showed worse outcomes in the BELLO trial and better outcomes in the three trials employing a limus-eluting stent. To evaluate trial heterogeneity through the comparison of the six PCB arms, five trials showed similar outcomes while the BELLO trial fared significantly worse. Risk of bias for each RCT was appropriate. Our results indicate that in de novo small-vessel coronary lesions, PCB and DES showed similar outcomes, despite some cross-study variability. Our results provided meta-analytic confirmation that no recommendations can be made in favor of PCB or DES in the treatment of de novo small-vessel coronary lesions based on current data.
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.