Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41226975›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Blended Coronary Revascularization with Drug-Coated Balloon and Drug-Eluting Stent: A Narrative Review on Rationale, Clinical Evidence, and Future Perspectives.

Filippo Luca Gurgoglione, Eman Murad, Marco Frazzetto, Bernardo Cortese

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Filippo Luca GurgoglioneDCB Academy, 20143 Milano, Italy.
Eman MuradDCB Academy, 20143 Milano, Italy.
Marco FrazzettoDCB Academy, 20143 Milano, Italy.
Bernardo CorteseDCB Academy, 20143 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5808-7810

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs) is the most used revascularization strategy in current clinical practice. However, this approach is still associated with a non-negligible risk of adverse events, including late and very late in-stent restenosis (ISR) and stent thrombosis, even with newer-generation DESs. Notably, long stents and the use of overlapping stents have been consistently identified as independent predictors of both ISR and stent thrombosis. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged as a viable alternative to DESs. Initially evaluated in specific clinical settings, such as small-vessel disease and ISR, DCBs have demonstrated promising results in the treatment of more complex coronary lesions and higher-risk patient populations, including elderly, diabetics and those at high bleeding risk. Their main advantage lies in avoiding permanent implantation of metallic struts and polymer coatings, thereby preserving coronary vasomotor function and promoting positive vessel remodeling and late lumen enlargement. As a result, a hybrid or blended revascularization strategy combining DESs and DCBs has gained increasing interest, offering the potential to harness the complementary benefits of both DESs and DCBs, while minimizing stent overlap and total stent length. Some studies have explored this approach, particularly for the treatment of diffuse coronary artery disease and bifurcation lesions. This narrative review aims to outline the pathophysiological rationale underlying a blended DCB/DES approach and to summarize the currently available clinical evidence. Furthermore, we discuss future perspectives for optimizing the combination DCB and DES PCI in real-world practice.

Indexed as

coronary artery diseasediffuse coronary diseasedrug-coated balloon

Identifiers

PMID41226975
PMCPMC12610358

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.