Trial reportCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2026
Cutting vs standard balloon for lesion preparation in drug-coated balloon-only PCI: the NATURE randomised trial.
Trial report in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 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.
- 2026 revised CVIT clinical expert consensus on drug coated balloons for coronary artery disease.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of drug-coated balloon (DCB) therapy for de novo coronary lesions relies on optimal lesion preparation. However, evidence supporting the use of cutting balloons (CBs) for lesion preparation in DCB-only strategies remains limited. The NATURE trial assessed the effectiveness of CB compared with standard balloon (SB) predilatation in achieving optimal lesion preparation for a DCB-only strategy. The NATURE trial was a prospective, multicentre, randomised study conducted at 19 Japanese centres. Patients with de novo coronary lesions suitable for a DCB-only strategy were randomised (1:1) to lesion preparation with CB or SB. Post-predilatation assessment included coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and fractional flow reserve (FFR). The primary endpoint was optimal lesion preparation, defined as the simultaneous presence of: (1) no flow-limiting dissection, (2) residual diameter stenosis ≤ 30% by quantitative coronary angiography, and (3) FFR > 0.80. Among 201 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, optimal lesion preparation was achieved in 35.6% of the CB group and 30.0% of the SB group (adjusted risk ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.65; p = 0.28). Avoidance of flow-limiting dissection was high in both groups (98.0% vs 97.0%). CB predilatation resulted in lower residual diameter stenosis (30.8 ± 11.8% vs 34.5 ± 13.3%; p = 0.04) and less acute recoil (1.18 ± 0.36 vs 1.31 ± 0.50 mm; p = 0.03). Trends towards larger lumen dimensions on IVUS were also observed with CB. In patients undergoing DCB-only PCI for de novo coronary lesions, CB predilatation provided modest angiographic advantages compared with SB but did not significantly increase the rate of optimal lesion preparation. Optimal lesion preparation is essential for successful drug-coated balloon (DCB) therapy because DCBs do not provide mechanical scaffolding to maintain vessel patency. In this multicentre randomised trial, cutting balloon predilatation resulted in greater acute luminal expansion and less recoil than standard balloon predilatation, although it did not significantly increase the overall rate of optimal lesion preparation defined by angiographic and physiological criteria. These findings suggest that cutting balloons may offer modest mechanical advantages during lesion preparation in DCB-only PCI. However, the clinical significance of these acute angiographic advantages requires confirmation in larger trials and through longer-term follow-up.
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.