ArticleHealth science reports2026
Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for In-Stent Restenosis and De-Novo Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Health science 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) are commonly used in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), but their long-term comparative effectiveness remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of DCB versus DES in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) and de novo lesions, including ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and small vessel disease (SVD). Methods: A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCBs and DESs. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR), with secondary outcomes including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stent/lesion thrombosis, and late lumen loss (LLL). The frequentist network meta-analysis and binary random-effect analysis were used to compare DCB versus. DES. Results: A total of 21 RCTs with 4244 patients were included. In ISR patients, the risk of TLR was comparable between DCB vs. DES at 1-year (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.86-2.14) and beyond 1-year (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93). DCB and DES showed no significant difference in other secondary outcomes at 1-year and beyond. In STEMI and SVD patients, DCB and DES demonstrated similar outcomes, except for a lower LLL after DCB in patients with SVD (SMD: -0.38, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.22). Conclusion: DCB and DES were associated with a similar risk of TLR in patients with ISR, STEMI, and SVD. The results were consistent at 1-year and beyond time intervals. Furthermore, DCB was associated with a lower LLL compared to DES in patients with SVD.
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.