Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41464654›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Drug-Coated Balloons and Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissections.

Marios Sagris, Marios G Bantidos, Nikolaos Stalikas, Barbara Fyntanidou, Christos Kofos, Konstantinos Tsioufis, Efstratios Karagiannidis, Nikolaos Patsourakos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marios Sagris1st Department of Cardiology, Hippokration General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-3473-1368
Marios G BantidosSecond Department of Cardiology, General Hospital 'Hippokration', Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0009-0001-9409-388X
Nikolaos StalikasCardiovascular Center, AZORG Ziekenhuis, Moorselbaan 164, 9300 Aalst, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0190-5392
Barbara FyntanidouDepartment of Emergency Medicine, AHEPA University Hospital, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-0019-0134
Christos KofosSecond Department of Cardiology, General Hospital 'Hippokration', Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Konstantinos Tsioufis1st Department of Cardiology, Hippokration General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-7636-6725
Efstratios KaragiannidisSecond Department of Cardiology, General Hospital 'Hippokration', Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-8328-5942
Nikolaos PatsourakosDepartment of Cardiology, "Tzaneio" General Hospital of Piraeus, 18542 Piraeus, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-5198-6314

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an increasingly recognized cause of acute coronary syndromes in younger women without typical atherosclerotic risk factors. Its distinct pathophysiology and vessel fragility create unique challenges for revascularization. Conservative management is preferred when hemodynamics and coronary flow permit, but selected cases necessitate intervention, primarily percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Despite growing insights into SCAD pathomechanics-the "outside-in" and "inside-out" hypotheses-and the central role of intracoronary imaging (OCT/IVUS), optimal device strategies remain under-researched. The present review covers contemporary SCAD-PCI pitfalls and limitations, expanding to the mechanistic underpinnings and procedural applications of drug-coated balloons (DCB) and bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) as "leave-nothing-behind" alternatives. Both approaches have advantages and drawbacks but are attractive in selected scenarios: DCB delivers antiproliferative therapy without permanent caging, and BRS provides temporary scaffolding (amenable to overlap when required) with the potential to restore biomechanics/vasomotion after resorption. Acknowledging that definitive evidence is lacking and current data are largely observational, the review finally sets future research priorities including head-to-head trials of different DCB types and evaluation of next-generation, thinner-strut, predictably resorbing BRS. The overarching question is whether-and how-these modalities can be integrated into standardized, imaging-guided interventional algorithms for SCAD.

Indexed as

bioresorbable scaffold (BRS)drug-coated balloon (DCB)false lumen (FL)intramural hematoma (IMH)intravascular imagingpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD)

Identifiers

PMID41464654
PMCPMC12734176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.