SynthesisCardiovascular therapeutics2026
Comparison of Hybrid Strategy With Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Stent-Only Strategy for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular therapeutics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) account for approximately 15%-20% of all percutaneous coronary interventions and remain a therapeutic challenge. A hybrid strategy combining drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for the side branch with drug-eluting stents (DESs) for the main vessel has emerged as a novel therapy aimed at mitigating complications associated with permanent implants. This study was aimed at systematically evaluating the efficacy and safety of the hybrid strategy compared with a DES-only strategy (including single- and double-stent strategies) in CBLs.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we systematically searched major databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the DES + DCB hybrid strategy with a DES-only strategy for CBLs. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), late lumen loss (LLL), myocardial infarction (MI), and restenosis rate. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and StataMP.
resultsWe included 13 studies, comprising five RCTs and eight observational studies, with a total of 2186 patients (1030 in the hybrid strategy group and 1156 in the DES-only group). Compared with the DES-only strategy, the hybrid strategy was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-0.99; p = 0.04) and a lower risk of TLR (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.79; p = 0.005); however, the MACE benefit was of borderline statistical significance. Regarding angiographic endpoints, the hybrid strategy substantially lowered the risk of side branch restenosis (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.05-0.34; p < 0.0001). Side branch LLL was consistently lower with the hybrid strategy across all contributing studies; however, extreme between-study heterogeneity (I
conclusionsFor CBLs, the DES + DCB hybrid strategy appears to offer favorable safety and efficacy compared with a stent-only strategy. The observed benefits likely reflect both the avoidance of a second permanent stent implant and the localized antiproliferative drug delivery by the DCB, collectively reducing side branch restenosis and TLR. These findings support the hybrid approach as a promising alternative to complex double-stent techniques, although large-scale RCTs are warranted to confirm these results.
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.