ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Conventional Balloons in Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions in Small Vessels.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Coronary bifurcation lesions in small vessels are challenging due to complex anatomy and high restenosis risk. Conventional balloons (CBs) yield suboptimal outcomes, whereas drug-eluting balloons (DEBs), which deliver antiproliferative drugs without stenting, may offer a superior alternative. This study compares the efficacy and safety of DEBs versus CBs for treating coronary bifurcation lesions in small vessels. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study analyzed patients with de novo coronary bifurcation lesions in small vessels (≤2.5 mm in diameter) treated between April 2022 and May 2024, assigned to either the CB group (n=56) or the DEB group (n=62) based on the type of balloon used. Procedural success was defined by angiographic criteria and TIMI grade 3 flow. Primary and secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), restenosis rates, minimum lumen diameter (MLD), and late lumen loss. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (p>0.05). The DEB group had significantly lower restenosis rates (4.8% vs 26.8%, p<0.001), higher post-procedural MLD (2.48±0.23 mm vs 2.11±0.21 mm, p<0.001), and reduced late lumen loss (0.07±0.02 mm vs 0.10±0.03 mm, p<0.001). Rates of perioperative complications and 1-year MACE were low and comparable (p=0.621 and p=0.259, respectively). CONCLUSIONS DEBs appear safe and effective for small-vessel coronary bifurcation lesions, offering superior efficacy over CBs in reducing restenosis and improving luminal outcomes. These results support their use as a preferred treatment option.
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.