ArticlePloS one2025
Long-term outcomes following drug-coated balloons versus thin-strut drug-eluting stents for treatment of in-stent restenosis in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD Dragon-Registry).
Article in PloS one, 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to investigated the outcomes of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and drug-eluting stent (DES)-in-stent restenosis (ISR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-coated balloon (DCB) or thin strut drug-eluting stent (thin-DES). Consecutive patients with DES-ISR who underwent PCI with a thin-DES or a paclitaxel-coated DCB for DES-ISR were enrolled. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR), while the secondary was target vessel revascularization (TVR) and device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE). The pooled analysis included 1,317 patients, with 585 (44.42%) treated using a thin-DES and 732 (55.58%) by DCB. In the crude analysis of CKD patients (n = 286) undergoing PCI for ISR, thin-DES vs. DCB showed similar outcomes for TLR (hazard ratio [HR]=0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.44-2.00; p = 0.873), TVR (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.44-1.55; p = 0.542), MI (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.34-1.46; p = 0.348) and DOCE (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.36-1.40; p = 0.325). After propensity score matching (n = 184), the HRs remained non-significant for TLR (0.52, 95% CI = 0.21-1.29; p = 0.159), TVR (0.54, 95% CI = 0.24-1.01; p = 0.134), MI (0.56, 95% CI = 0.24-1.32; p = 0.183), TV-MI (0.56, 95% CI = 0.09-3.39; p = 0.528), cardiac death (0.63, 95% CI = 0.10-3.81; p = 0.615), and DOCE (0.45, 95% CI = 0.19-1.04; p = 0.062). In conclusion, in CKD patients undergoing PCI for ISR, thin-DES treatment was associated with a numerical reduction in TLR, TVR, and DOCE compared with DCB. However, these differences did not achieve statistical significance in the crude or propensity score-matched analyses.
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.