ArticleCirculation reports2026
Long-Term Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty vs. Drug-Eluting Stent for De Novo Large-Vessel Coronary Arteries.
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) angioplasty has shown short-term feasibility for large-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD; ≥3 mm); however, long-term outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the 5-year cardiovascular outcomes of DCB angioplasty vs. drug-eluting stents (DES) for de novo large-vessel CAD. Methods and Results: This single-center retrospective study analyzed patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either DCB (SeQuent Please) or DES (Xience Alpine) between January 2016 and December 2018. The primary outcomes were cardiovascular events (CVE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes included minimal lumen diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS), and late lumen loss (LLL), assessed at the index PCI and at the 1-year angiographic follow up. Overall, 114 patients (122 lesions) in the DCB group and 269 patients (293 lesions) in the DES group were analyzed, with similar median follow-up durations (1,678 vs. 1,825 days; P=0.687). At 5 years, TLR and CVE rates were comparable between the DCB and DES groups (7.9% vs. 4.5%, P=0.239; and 11.4% vs. 10.4%, P=0.773, respectively). No significant differences in MLD, DS, or LLL were observed between the groups at the 1-year follow up. Conclusions: With careful lesion selection and preparation, DCB angioplasty could serve as a feasible treatment option for de novo large-vessel CAD in clinical practice.
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.