ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Precise intervention of drug-coated balloons based on quantitative flow ratio: treatment efficacy and virtual planning adaptability evaluation.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment for coronary artery stenosis guided by quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and the clinical applicability of virtual balloon planning.
methodsA single-center retrospective study was conducted on 48 patients (52 lesions). Changes in minimum lumen diameter (MLD) and QFR values before and after treatment were examined. Paired testing and the Bland–Altman method were employed to assess the consistency between the virtual balloon size (length/diameter) and actual size used in clinical practice.
resultsMLD and QFR values improved significantly after DCB treatment (MLD: 1.20 ± 0.40 mm to 2.15 ± 0.50 mm, P < 0.001; QFR: 0.78 ± 0.14 to 0.94 ± 0.04, P < 0.001), with a complication rate of 1.92%. The virtual balloon length was significantly shorter than the actual length (15.65 ± 11.88 mm vs. 20 ± 8 mm, P < 0.001). No significant bias was observed in the balloon diameter (2.55 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.75 ± 0.5 mm, P = 0.443), although the 95% limits of agreement were wide (–0.70 to 0.78 mm), with a clinical concordance rate (± 0.5 mm) of 84.91%.
conclusionQFR-guided DCB treatment effectively improves hemodynamic and anatomical parameters with good short-term safety. However, virtual balloon planning algorithms require optimization to enhance clinical applicability and the accuracy of balloon size prediction.
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.