SynthesisAnatolian journal of cardiology2025
Drug-Coated Balloons vs. Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Side Branch Management in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hybrid drug-coated balloon strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Isolated Medina 0,0,1 Ostial Side-Branch Lesions: Procedural Outcomes, Bailout Stenting, and 12-Month Clinical Follow-Up.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Safety Profile of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for Isolated Side Branch Lesions: A Single-Center Experience.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2026Article
- Drug-Coated Balloons in Side Branch Treatment in True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Challenges and Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBifurcation lesions pose unique challenges during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are associated with suboptimal outcomes. The standard approach involves provisional stenting of the main branch (MB) with plain balloon angioplasty (BA) for compromised side branches (SBs). It remains unclear whether drug-coated balloon (DCB) or plain balloon angioplasty pose a better strategy to treat SB in bifurcation lesions. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy of DCB versus BA in managing SBs of bifurcation lesions.
methodsMEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB and BA for treating bifurcation lesions. Outcomes included SB late lumen loss (LLL), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR).
resultsFive RCTs were included, encompassing 1,255 patients, of whom 628 (50.4%) underwent DCB angioplasty; 946 (75.4%) were male, and the mean age was 63.5 years. Drug-coated balloons significantly reduced MI risk (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.88, P = .010). DCB use resulted in similar LLL in the SB compared with BA (mean difference (MD) = -0.12 mm, 95% CI: -0.24-0.01, P = .070). No significant differences were observed in TLR (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.45-3.14, P = .720), MACE (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = .070), and all-cause mortality (RR = 2.35, 95% CI: 0.61-9.00, P = .210).
conclusionIn this meta-analysis of RCTs, DCB significantly reduced MI without affecting LLL, TLR, MACE, and all-cause mortality compared with BA in the SB of bifurcation lesions.
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.