ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Drug-coated balloon vs drug-eluting stent in de novo coronary lesions: a propensity score matched cohort study.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of the efficacy of rotational coronary atherectomy with drug-coated balloon and drug-eluting stent for severe calcified coronary artery disease.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- DCB therapy: quo vadis?Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Recent advances in percutaneous coronary intervention for modernizing coronary physiology-guided and device-based strategies for coronary revascularization.Frontiers in 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is increasing due to potential benefits mainly by avoiding foreign material although a widespread application area beyond in-stent restenosis lacks robust clinical data to date. As such, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of DCBs in treating de novo lesions.
methodsFor this analysis, we included all patients treated with DCB in a de novo lesions from 2010 to 2019 at our institution. We performed a 1:1 propensity score matching to pair each DCB intervention with a comparable DES intervention. Follow-up continued until 09/2022 to assess clinical outcomes.
resultsA total of 303 patients with de novo lesion were matched to 303 patients with comparable baseline characteristics. The median follow-up time was 5.7 years (IQR 2.7-9.3). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular (CV) mortality (HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.87-1.19], p value 0.874), all-cause mortality (HR 1.05 [95% CI 0.91-1.22], p value 0.491), MACE (HR 1.10 [95% CI 0.96-1.26], p value 0.170), acute myocardial infarction (HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.90-1.19], p value 0.308), or any revascularization (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.90-1.19], p value 0.671) between both groups. However, we observed a trend toward lower rates of target lesion revascularization in patients with small vessel disease (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.68-1.02], p value 0.072), and in side branch lesions (HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.58-1.04], p value 0.096).
conclusionDCBs demonstrated long-term safety and efficacy in de novo lesions, with promising trends in reducing target lesion revascularization in small vessel disease and side branches.
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.