SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Drug-coated balloons in coronary disease: meta-analysis comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-coated technologies.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimDrug-coated balloons (DCBs) are a key alternative to drug-eluting stents for coronary artery interventions, offering the advantage of drug delivery without permanent implants. Both paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) and sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs) are valuable treatment options. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-coated versus paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters in patients with coronary artery disease.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines, searching five databases. We exclusively included RCTs. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models, with sensitivity analysis performed in cases of heterogeneity.
resultsEight trials involving 1043 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between SCB and PCB for late lumen loss (MD 0.06, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.14]). Only two outcomes showed statistically significant differences favoring PCB: reducing late lumen enlargement (RR 0.66, 95% CI [0.49-0.87], P = 0.004) and, after sensitivity analysis, lowering binary restenosis rates in de novo lesions
conclusionThis meta-analysis shows SCB and PCB have similar safety and efficacy in coronary artery interventions, with no significant differences in most outcomes. However, PCB outperforms late lumen enlargement and binary restenosis rates in de novo lesions. Similar outcomes across sirolimus formulations indicate other factors influence success. Both balloon types appear safe and effective, though PCB may retain certain advantages in specific scenarios. Larger, longer-term studies are needed to establish the optimal drug-coated balloon strategy for different patient populations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919160What 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.