ReviewCureus2024
Drug-Coated Balloons in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Beyond Evidence.
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
Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) represent a promising alternative to drug-eluting stents (DESs) by adopting a "leave-nothing-behind" approach, avoiding the long-term implantation of metallic materials associated with vessel damage, stent thrombosis, and restenosis. Although DCBs have historically been indicated for patients with in-stent restenosis or de novo small-vessel disease, recent studies indicate the potential for broader applications in acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). Trials comparing DCB and DES treatments show that DCBs yield comparable long-term outcomes, with some studies suggesting reduced rates of secondary endpoints such as cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction among ACS patients treated with DCBs. Research on DCBs in various clinical scenarios, including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, has shown promising results for safety and efficacy, with particular support for combining DCBs with other techniques such as excimer laser coronary atherectomy. These findings support the viability of DCBs as an effective alternative to DES for select patients. Technical guidelines and best practices for optimal DCB application have also emerged, emphasizing lesion preparation and drug delivery techniques. Further studies are anticipated to provide deeper insights into the long-term outcomes and broader clinical applications of DCBs, potentially establishing them as a primary approach in interventional cardiology.
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.