SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Drug-Coated Balloons versus Drug-Eluting Stents for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arterial remodeling and plaque changes after balloon angioplasty for de novo coronary lesions using DCB.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Drug-coated balloons vs. drug-eluting stents for coronary artery disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with lesion-specific insights.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Because of the limitations in new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), treatments advocating for non-stents with a drug-coated balloon (DCB) is now of great interest. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to testify whether a DCB was more effective and safer than a DES in treating de novo coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to obtain high-quality trials comparing DCB with DES for the treatment of de novo CAD. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR), and the secondary endpoints were in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL), all-cause death, myocardial infarction and binary restenosis. Results: We enrolled 1661 patients from seven randomized clinical trials. Compared with the DES group, the MD (mean difference) of in-lesion LLL was significantly lower in the DCB group (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.16, Conclusions: The DCB group exhibited a lower in-lesion LLL compared to the DES group, and DCB was not inferior to DES in other endpoints, including in the SVD subgroup. Hence, to our knowledge, DCB is non-inferior to DES for de novo CVD and SVD. DCB in patients with CVD needs further large and long-term clinical trials to demonstrate its long-term efficacy. The PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021268965, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=268965.
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.