ArticleCirculation reports2026
Clinical Impact of Drug-Coated Balloon-Based Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Coronary Artery Disease Patients With Chronic Heart Failure.
Article in Circulation reports, 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: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is a novel treatment option for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The presence of heart failure (HF) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with a poor prognosis. However, the clinical significance of DCB-based PCI in CAD patients with HF is unknown. Methods and Results: This was a retrospective analysis of a cohort study from a prospective, single center registry from 2015 to 2024. We enrolled 258 CAD patients with chronic HF who underwent PCI with DCB or in combination with a drug-eluting stent (DES). Propensity score matching analysis was performed between the DCB-based PCI and DES-only PCI groups. The primary endpoint of this study was all-cause mortality. Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups. The total DES number and length were significantly reduced in patients with DCB-based PCI than in those with DES-only PCI. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the DCB-based PCI group had a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality compared with the DES-only group (log-rank test, P=0.04). Conclusions: In CAD patients with chronic HF, DCB-based PCI was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared with DES-only PCI.
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.