ArticleIndian heart journal
Efficacy and long-term outcomes of drug coated balloon in de novo lesions of small versus large coronary vessels.
Article in Indian heart journal. 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
objectiveDrug eluting stent (DES) could result in both in-stent restenosis and high bleeding risk due to long-term anti-platelet therapy. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) delivers anti-proliferative drugs without implanting metal into vascular wall. Our aim was to investigate its feasibility in large vessel coronary artery disease (LvCAD), compared to small vessel coronary artery disease (SvCAD).
methodsThis study enrolled 237 patients with de novo coronary lesions treated with DCB-only strategy and categorized according to the reference vessel diameter of 3 mm into SvCAD and LvCAD groups. The primary endpoint was in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL). The secondary endpoints included composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and vessel thrombosis.
resultsThe immediate (3.06 ± 0.25 vs. 2.33 ± 0.21 mm, p = 0.001) and follow up minimal lumen diameter (3.13 ± 0.25 vs. 2.41 ± 0.21 mm, p = 0.001) and acute gain (1.92 ± 0.29 vs. 1.5 ± 0.26 mm, p = 0.04) were significantly higher in LvCAD group. In-lesion LLL was negative without significant difference (-0.07 ± 0.02 vs. - 0.06 ± 0.04 mm, p = 0.69). The incidence of adverse clinical events was not statistically significant accounting for 6.5 % vs. 10.5 % for composite MACE (p = 0.27), 0.8 % vs. 0.9 % for cardiac death (p = 0.96), 4.9 % vs.7 % for non-fatal MI (p = 0.49), 4.1 % vs. 6.1 % for TLR (p = 0.47), 2.4 % vs. 3.5 % for TVR (p = 0.63) and 1.6 % vs. 2.6 % for vessel thrombosis (p = 0.59).
conclusionDCB-only strategy is effective in treating LvCAD with comparable outcomes to SvCAD.
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.