ArticleAsiaIntervention2026
Head-to-head comparison of limus- versus paclitaxel-coated balloons in the treatment of in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of the efficacy of limus-coated balloons vs. paclitaxel-coated balloons for coronary artery disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of robust comparative data between limus drug-coated balloons (DCBs) versus paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) on their efficacy and safety in treating in-stent restenosis (ISR). Aims: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of limus DCBs versus PCBs in terms of clinical and angiographic outcomes during a 12-month follow-up. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically explored PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases up to 20 February 2025 for studies comparing limus DCBs versus PCBs in terms of safety, efficacy, and angiographic outcomes in treating ISR. The primary outcomes were the incidence of clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and failure (TLF). Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and angiographic findings during follow-up. Results: Data from six randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including a total of 639 patients treated with limus DCBs and 569 with PCBs for ISR, were analysed with a mean follow-up of 12 months. In this analysis, all six RCTs reported on TLR (limus DCB 14% vs PCB 11.4%) and TLF (limus DCB 15% vs PCB 14%) incidence, showing no significant difference between the limus DCB and PCB groups. No significant differences were observed in MACE (16.4% vs 13.5%), all-cause mortality (1.8% vs 1.4%), cardiac death (1.4% vs 1.0%) or target vessel myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 1.0%), for limus DCBs versus PCBs, respectively. Angiographic outcomes showed no significant differences in post-intervention minimal lumen diameter (standardised mean difference [SMD] +0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07 to 0.18; I Conclusions: Our findings suggest that limus DCBs are equally as effective and safe as PCBs for treating ISR, demonstrating non-inferiority in both clinical and angiographic outcomes at 12 months post-intervention.
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.