Trial reportCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2026
Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Patients With Long De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: Insights From the REC-CAGEFREE I Trial.
Trial report in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Patients With Long De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions: Insights From the REC-CAGEFREE I Trial.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor long coronary lesions, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) might be an attractive alternative compared with drug-eluting stents (DES); however, supporting evidence remains scarce.
aimsTo compare the efficacy of DCBs versus DES for treating long de novo coronary lesions.
methodsREC-CAGEFREE I was a non-inferiority trial conducted at 43 sites in China, which randomized 2272 patients to paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty with the option of rescue stenting or sirolimus-eluting stents for treating de novo lesions, regardless of vessel diameter. In this pre-specified subgroup analysis, patients were stratified by quantitative coronary angiography-assessed lesion length into short (< 20 mm) and long (≥ 20 mm) groups. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE, including cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically and physiologically-indicated target lesion revascularization) at 3 years.
results2,223 (97.8%) participants with available angiograms were included, of which 302 (13.6%) had long lesions and 1921 (86.4%) had short lesions. At 3 years, DoCE occurred in 24/302 (8.0%) and 121/1921 (6.3%) patients in long and short groups, respectively. In the long lesions group, DoCE occurred in 14/121 (11.6%) and 10/181 (5.6%) in the DCBs and DES groups, respectively (HR
conclusionDCBs were associated with a higher risk of DoCE compared to DES for treating de novo lesions, regardless of lesion length.
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.