ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Drug-coated balloons for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. 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.
- Smart PH-responsive drug-eluting balloons: a next-generation strategy for in-stent restenosis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
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
Background: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged as a potential option for treating in-stent restenosis (ISR). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of DCB compared to uncoated balloons (UCBs) for patients with ISR. Methods: We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing drug-coated balloons with uncoated balloons for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). Dichotomous and continuous outcomes were pooled using Revman 5.4 under a random-effects model. All the outcomes were assessed in a 6-month to 1-year follow-up period. Results: A total of seven RCTs involving 1407 patients were included in our review. DCBs significantly reduced the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.48), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.90), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR 0.39; 95% CI: 0.26, 0.58), and MI (RR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.91). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stent thrombosis. DCB significantly improved angiographic outcomes such as binary restenosis (RR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.43), late lumen loss (MD -0.44; 95% CI: - 0.55 to -0.33), and percent diameter stenosis (MD -13.91; 95% CI: - 24.15 to -3.67) compared to the UCB group. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that drug-coated balloons have superior efficacy and safety compared to uncoated balloons in coronary in-stent restenosis patients.
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.