ArticleIndian heart journal
Long term outcomes of drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with small vessel coronary artery disease.
Article in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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 stents (DES) are a normative care of coronary stenosis. However, their efficacy was limited by stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis especially in small vessel coronary artery disease (SvCAD). The aim of this study was to assess angiographic efficacy and clinical outcomes of drug coated balloons (DCB) as compared with DES in SvCAD setting.
methodsA total of 100 SvCAD patients with percutaeous angioplasty of culprit coronary arteries <3 mm diameter and >70 % stenosis were enrolled in this study. The patients were categorized into DES arm and DCB arm. One year clinical outcomes were assessed. The primary endpoint was in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL). The secondary endpoints were vessel thrombosis, major bleeding, all-cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs).
resultsOne year clinical follow-up revealed that in-lesion LLL was significantly lower in DCB arm as compared with DES arm (p = 0.004). Composite MACE was significantly higher in DES group compared to DCB group (p < 0.001). Non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major bleeding in DES group were significantly higher than DCB group (p = 0.04 & p < 0.001 & p = 0.03, respectively). However, there was a numerically; but not significantly, higher incidence of cardiac death (p = 0.65), and vessel thrombosis (p = 0.18) in DES arm compared to DES arm.
conclusionIn SvCAD setting, DCB has favourable angiographic and clinical outcomes; as evidenced by lower LLL and composite MACE at one year follow up, compared to DES.
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.