ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Clinical outcomes of drug-coated balloons dilatation for benign esophageal stricture.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug-coated balloons (DCBs) angioplasty is safe and effective for coronary artery disease. However, DCBs dilatation for the treatment of benign esophageal strictures is rarely reported. PURPOSE: We aimed to report the clinical outcomes of DCBs dilatation for patients with benign esophageal strictures.
methodsFrom May 2020 to August 2023, 18 patients underwent DCBs dilatation for benign esophageal strictures. Baseline demographics were recorded and evaluated, including gender, age, comorbidities, stricture diameter and length, dilatation session, complications.
resultsA total of 24 dilatation sessions of DCBs were performed, with a mean of 1.3 ± 0.6 sessions per patients (range 1.0-5.0). Dysphagia score decreased significantly after DCBs dilatation (2.6 ± 1.1 vs. 0.9 ± 1.3, p = 0.0002). Both stricture diameter and stricture index decreased significantly after DCBs dilatation (p < 0.0001). No procedure-related death, massive bleeding or esophageal perforation was observed during or after DCBs dilatation. Minor complications were found in only 3 patients (16.7%). All 18 patients were successfully followed up for a median period of 12.0 months. By the end of follow up, 10 patients showed no dysphagia, 6 patients showed mild dysphagia and 2 patients showed no improvement in dysphagia. The clinical success rate of DCBs dilatation is 88.9%.
conclusionDCBs dilatation may be a safe, effective and feasible treatment for benign esophageal strictures, and can be utilized as an alternative option after standard dilatation has failed. Prospective studies with large samples are needed to further validate its clinical efficacy.
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.