SynthesisF1000Research2026
Comparative Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant comorbidity in cardiovascular treatments, increasing the likelihood of adverse outcomes. Choosing between drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with CKD requires careful consideration of efficacy and safety. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of DEB and DES in CKD patients, focusing on mortality, MACE, TLR, and stent thrombosis. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect until September 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort study comparing DEB and DES in CKD patients were included. Four reviewers independently screened and extracted data on mortality, MACE, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis, and conflicts were resolved through discussion. Results: Five studies (four retrospective cohorts, one RCT) met inclusion criteria after screening 4,093 records, involving CKD/ESRD patients undergoing PCI with DEB (paclitaxel-coated) versus contemporary DES. MACE rates were equivalent: 17% in both arms (Funayama et al., ESRD dialysis cohort) and 10% in both arms (Jeger et al., RCT; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.38-2.57). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel failure (TVF) showed heterogeneity: DES favored in some (e.g., Waha et al., aHR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.69), DEB numerically in others (e.g., Joh et al., 2-year TVF 14.3% DEB vs. 27.8% DES), with no meta-analysis due to clinical/methodological differences; thrombosis was low and sparse (0% DEB vs. 2.2% DES in Funayama). Conclusion: In CKD/ESRD patients, DEB and DES yield equivalent MACE, though TLR/TVF results vary by study design, CKD severity, and procedural factors. No clear superiority emerged, supporting individualized strategy selection based on lesion characteristics, bleeding risk, and expertise. Prospective RCTs with standardized CKD subgroups and DEB optimization are needed for definitive guidance.PROSPERO registration ID: CRD420251039001 (05/15/2025).
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.