SynthesisCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
Drug Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With De Novo Coronary Artery Disease.
Synthesis in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regional Differences Between Drug-Coated Balloons and Drug-Eluting Stents inCardiology research · 2026Article
- Drug-Coated Balloons in Coronary Bifurcation Disease: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Drug-coated Balloons in the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease: Results from the Drug Eluting Technologies Evaluation & Current Trends (DETECT) Survey.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 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
- Drug-Coated Balloons and Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Intravascular Imaging Guidance for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug eluting stent (DES) implantation is the gold standard therapy. New evidence is available with drug coated balloons (DCB) angioplasty. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of DCB angioplasty versus DES-based PCI for patients with de novo CAD.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases was performed from January 1, 2006 up until November 1, 2024. Inclusion criteria were random treatment assignment; PCI with DCB versus DES; patients with de novo CAD; clinical follow-up available for ≥1 year; and studies published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial-level incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled by random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included cardiac death, all-cause death, and target lesion revascularization.
resultsA total of nine clinical trials comprising of 4284 patients were included. The risk of the primary compositive endpoint of MACE was comparable with DCB versus DES (IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.48). Secondary endpoints including cardiac death (IRR 1.49, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.33), all-cause death (IRR 1.18, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.74), and target lesion revascularization (IRR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.01) were comparable though CIs around treatment effects were wide.
conclusionsDCB angioplasty for de novo CAD was associated with similar medium-term clinical outcomes compared with DES. Additional evidence is warranted in view of numerical trends in important secondary endpoints.
trial registrationThe analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024581222).
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.