Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2024
Clinical value of drug-coated balloon versus second-generation drug-eluting stent for de novo lesions in large coronary arteries: insights from the real world.
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty vs. Drug-Eluting Stent for De Novo Large-Vessel Coronary Arteries.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Clinical application and expansion of paclitaxel-coated balloons in coronary atherosclerotic disease.World journal of cardiology · 2026Review
- Effect of vessel diameter on the clinical benefits of drug-coated balloon angioplasty: Insights from paclitaxel-coated balloon and polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent studies.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Large Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Drug-Coated Balloons in All-Comer Population-Are We There Yet?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients with large coronary arteries (LCA, reference vessel diameter more than 3.0 mm) de novo lesions treated by drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus second-generation drug-eluting stent (sDES) in real-world clinical practice.
methodsBetween January 2020 and June 2021, 2857 consecutive patients with equal number of LCA de novo lesions, including 708 lesions treated with paclitaxel DCB-only (DCB-only cohort) and 2149 lesions with sDES-only (sDES-only cohort), were enrolled in this retrospective study. The primary outcome was the clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) rate at two years. After propensity score matching, 708 patients treated with DCB-only and another 704 patients with sDES-only were successfully matched to study adjusted associations between treatment strategy and outcomes.
resultsCD-TLR rate was higher in the DCB-only group than sDES-only group (DCB: 5.5%, sDES: 3.1%, P = 0.028). However, lower major bleeding rate was observed in the DCB-only group compared to sDES-only group (0.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.003), which benefited from its short duration of antiplatelet therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that hypercholesteremia [odds ratio (OR), 2.516], diabetes (OR, 2.773), severe calcified lesions (OR, 5.184) and residual stenosis>30% (OR, 8.676) were risk predictors (P<0.01) of CD-TLR for DCB-only strategy; meanwhile, diabetes (OR, 3.255) and severe calcified lesions (OR, 2.152) were risk predictors (P<0.01) of CD-TLR for sDES strategy.
conclusionsDCB-only strategy is feasible for LCA de novo lesions in patients with high bleeding risk, but not suitable in other patients, who should first choose intended stenting strategy especially with unmanageable hypercholesteremia, severe calcified lesions or non-ideal residual stenosis after preprocessing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.