SynthesisMedicine2025
Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter versus paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPaclitaxel is an antimicrotubular agent and is used to coat balloons and stents used in percutaneous coronary intervention. This study aims to provide a pooled comparison of paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in terms of their efficacy in treating restenosis and their associated safety outcomes.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception until August 2024 to evaluate the outcomes between PCB and PES for treating coronary in-stent restenosis. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared PCB with PES in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis. Pooled data were reported using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024543509).
results734 patients across 4 trials were included in this analysis. Descriptive analysis showed high device success in both groups (99.6% for PCB vs 97.9% for PES), while restenosis occurred in 20.6% of PCB patients and 23.7% of PES patients. Myocardial infarction rates were 1.9% for PCB and 3.0% for PES, while mortality was observed in 1.6% and 3.6% of patients, respectively. No significant differences between PCB and PES were revealed in terms of recurrent binary restenosis rates (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.19 to 2.99) or late lumen loss (mean difference: -0.02; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.22). Device success rates (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.13), the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.69), and the incidence of death (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.41) were also comparable between the 2 groups.
conclusionPCB provides a viable stent-free alternative to PES with comparable outcomes. Further studies, especially those focused on assessing patient-specific factors and lesion characteristics are required to guide optimal treatment selection.
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.