SynthesisCardiovascular therapeutics2026
Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Other Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular therapeutics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) present a viable option distinct from drug-eluting stents (DESs) in addressing coronary artery disease (CAD), particularly when it comes to in-stent restenosis (ISR) scenarios. The utilization of DCBs marks a significant deviation from traditional DES applications. For CAD patients experiencing ISR, DCBs offer an innovative pathway to treatment. However, their efficacy and safety in de novo CAD lesions remain uncertain. This meta-analysis evaluates DCB versus other percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies, including DES, bare-metal stents (BMSs), and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), in de novo CAD. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), spanning from their inception up until November 14, 2024. Studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, which assessed DCB against alternative PCI strategies in patients with de novo CAD. The key outcome measures focused on major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) as well as late lumen loss (LLL). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) assessed the robustness of findings. Results: Fifty studies (19 RCTs, 31 cohort studies) involving 28,292 patients were analyzed. DCB showed a lower MACE incidence compared to noncoated devices (RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69) but no significant difference versus DES (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.84-1.10). DCB significantly reduced LLL compared to all controls (MD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.14). Subgroup analyses confirmed DCB's safety across indications, ethnicities, comorbidities, and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) durations, with reduced LLL in small vessel disease and shorter DAPT. TSA supported LLL findings but indicated inconclusive MACE results in RCTs, necessitating further research. Conclusion: DCB is a safe and effective alternative to DES in de novo CAD, with comparable safety and superior LLL reduction. However, MACE results in RCTs require further validation. Future studies should explore long-term outcomes and integrate newer-generation DCB and DES technologies to optimize clinical practice.
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.