Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Coated Balloons in the Treatment of Coronary Small Vessel Disease: A Report From the BASKET-SMALL 2 Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. 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.
- Trial
- Drug-coated balloons vs. drug-eluting stents for coronary artery disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with lesion-specific insights.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Consensus Statement on Drug-Coated Balloons in Coronary Artery Disease from the Cardiovascular Intervention Association of Thailand.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug-coated balloons (DCB) are noninferior to second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE). However, the economic implication of this finding is unclear.
methodsIn the BASKET-SMALL 2 study (Basel Stent Kosten-Effektivitäts Trial: Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Interventions 2), 738 patients were treated with either DCB or DES and followed up regarding MACE, that is, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or cardiac death, over 3 years. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using German diagnosis-related group data to evaluate total expected costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy, expressed in quality-adjusted life-years, for the entire cohort and each treatment option.
resultsDCB led to fewer MACE than DES (14.5% versus 15.3%) but also reduced quality-adjusted life expectancy during the 3-year follow-up (2.35 versus 2.36 quality-adjusted life-years). Regarding direct costs, DCB was less expensive than DES: 5243 versus 5341 EUR during the first 3 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DES versus DCB was 6863 EUR per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas DCB was more effective and less costly than DES in terms of MACE avoided. Sensitivity analyses emphasized the uncertainty in the results.
conclusionsDespite reducing the probability of MACE, in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy DCB was less cost effective than DES at 3 years in the treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease, although results varied substantially when accounting for uncertainty in model parameters.
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.