ArticleREC, interventional cardiology
Safety and efficacy of the Essential Pro paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis.
Article in REC, interventional cardiology. 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.
- Extended follow-up of the Essential Pro paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon for in-stent restenosis.REC, interventional cardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: Drug-eluting balloons (DEB) are an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis (ISR). This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a novel DEB in patients with ISR. Methods: This prospective, single-center study enrolled a consecutive cohort of patients diagnosed with ISR who underwent coronary angioplasty with a new second-generation paclitaxel-eluting balloon. The 3 main endpoints were myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization. Baseline variables were collected, including patient and procedure characteristics. Follow-up data were collected through medical records or telephone contact. Results: The study included 160 consecutive patients with 206 treated lesions (mean age, 71.4 ± 14.9 years, 15.5% women) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with DEB for ISR. A total of 53.3% of patients had acute coronary syndrome. The average diameter of the treated vessel was 3.10 ± 0.7 mm. The DEB used had a mean diameter of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm and a mean length of 23.1 ± 6.8 mm. Predilatation was performed in 98% of the lesions, and a noncompliant balloon was used in 80%. Intracoronary imaging was used in 24% of cases. At the end of the procedure, 98.5% of patients had Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3, residual stenosis was > 30% in 3.4%, and dissection occurred in 1.4%. Bail-out stenting was required in 4.8% of patients. Mortality was nil during follow-up (maximum 768 days). The incidence of myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization were 5.4% (95%CI, 0.69-10.1), 8.4% (95%CI, 0-17.8), and 14.2% (95%CI, 3.61-24.78), respectively. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with ISR treated with DEB, we observed a low rate of adverse events in both the short- and mid-term. These results support the safety and efficacy of this new generation of DEB for treating ISR.
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.