ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Impact of drug coated balloon on left anterior descending artery stenosis at proximal to myocardial bridge.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) represent a novel therapeutic approach for treating native coronary artery disease. However, the clinical outcomes of DCB in patients with left anterior descending (LAD) artery stenosis proximal to a myocardial bridge (MB) remain unclear. This study aims to investigate the effects of DCB in patients with LAD artery stenosis proximal to MB. Method: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with LAD artery stenosis proximal to MB who underwent DCB or drug-eluting stent (DES) procedures between January 2020 and July 2021. The DCB group comprised 30 patients treated with DCB alone, while the DES group included 105 patients treated with DES alone. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during a median follow-up of 507 days (IQR 391.5-622.0 days) were defined as a composite of unstable angina requiring hospitalization, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Both groups exhibited generally comparable baseline clinical and lesion characteristics, except for age and MB systolic compression. Over a median follow-up of 507 days (IQR 391.5-622.0 days), Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in MACE-free survival rates between the two groups (73.96%, 95% CI 55.8-98.0 vs. 82.49%, 95% CI 73.9-90.8; Log-rank Conclusion: In this exploratory retrospective study, we did not detect a statistically significant advantage of DCB over DES in treating LAD stenosis proximal to MB. Given the limited sample size, these findings should be considered preliminary and do not support DCB as a reasonable alternative to DES. Larger prospective studies are warranted to validate the potential role of DCB in this specific anatomical setting.
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.