ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
Drug-Coated Balloon-Based Versus Drug-Eluting Stent-Only Treatment for Large Vessel Coronary Artery Disease.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDrug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment has shown outcomes comparable to drug-eluting stent (DES) in small vessel coronary disease. However, evidence for its application in large vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) remains limited.
aimsThis study evaluated the clinical impact of DCB-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with large vessel CAD.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 550 consecutive patients with reference vessel diameter ≥ 3.0 mm treated with DCB-based PCI and propensity-matched them 1:1 to 550 patients who underwent conventional PCI with second-generation DES (DES-only group). The primary endpoint was 2-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, definite target lesion thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization (TVR).
resultsIn the DCB-based group, 390 patients (70.9%) were treated with DCB alone. Total device length was higher in the DCB group (40.0 ± 23.3 vs. 35.4 ± 23.3 mm; p = 0.001), whereas mean implanted stent length was shorter (9.6 ± 18.4 vs. 35.4 ± 23.3 mm; p < 0.001). The cumulative 2-year incidence of MACE was significantly lower after DCB-based PCI than after DES-only PCI (4.3% vs. 9.7%; hazard ratio: 0.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.26 to 0.70; p = 0.001). TVR was also lower in DCB-based PCI (3.4% vs. 7.5%; hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.81; p = 0.008). There was no difference in cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding.
conclusionIn patients with large vessel CAD, DCB-based PCI strategy was associated with a significant reduction in MACE compared with DES-only PCI at 2-year follow-up, primarily driven by a lower rate of TVR.
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.