Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42152958›Full record

ArticleIranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR

Paclitaxel- and Sirolimus-Coated Drug-Coated Balloons versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zhengmin Zhang, Gang Yu, Rong Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zhengmin ZhangCardiovasology, Dunhuang Hospital, Dunhung, China.
Gang YuCardiovasology, Dunhuang Hospital, Dunhung, China.
Rong GuoCardiovasology, Dunhuang Hospital, Dunhung, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requires rapid yet durable coronary reperfusion. Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the standard for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but pose long-term challenges such as late stent thrombosis and extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Drug-coated balloons (DCBs), using paclitaxel or newer sirolimus formulations, deliver antiproliferative therapy without leaving a permanent scaffold, offering a potentially safer, stent-free option. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCBs versus DES in AMI, with emphasis on drug platform (paclitaxel vs. sirolimus) and specific outcomes. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through 15 January 2025, according to a prospectively archived protocol on the Open Science Framework. Thirty-four eligible studies (14 randomized controlled trials (RTCs), 20 observational cohorts) comprising 19,642 participants and 2,313 major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were analyzed. Dichotomous outcomes were synthesized as pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) model; heterogeneity was quantified by I², τ², and H² statistics. Results: Drug-coated balloons were associated with a 15% relative reduction in MACE compared with DES (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73 - 0.99, I² = 63.2%). Rates of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.78 - 1.11), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.71 - 1.07), and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81 - 1.16) were comparable between groups. Late stent thrombosis was significantly lower with DCBs (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42 - 0.97). Most pooled evidence involved paclitaxel-coated balloons, while sirolimus-coated DCB data, though directionally consistent, remain limited by smaller sample size and shorter follow-up. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that DCBs represent a feasible, stent-free PCI strategy in AMI, providing comparable safety and efficacy to DES with a potential advantage in reducing late thrombosis. Device selection should be guided by lesion complexity, bleeding risk, and DAPT tolerance. Further large-scale, head-to-head randomized trials, particularly involving sirolimus-coated DCBs, are warranted to validate these findings.

Indexed as

Acute Myocardial InfarctionDrug-Coated BalloonDrug-Eluting StentDual Antiplatelet TherapyMeta-AnalysisPaclitaxelPercutaneous Coronary InterventionSirolimus

Identifiers

PMID42152958
PMCPMC13180300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.