ArticleAsiaIntervention2026
Angiographic and functional assessment after paclitaxel or sirolimus drug-coated balloons for de novo coronary artery disease in small vessels: PICCOLETO VI study.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Follow-Up Shapes the Outcome: Lessons From a Drug-Coated Balloon in East Asian Practice.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Different Drugs, Similar Outcomes? Challenging the No-Class-Effect Motto of Drug-Coated Balloon in Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Many roads lead to Rome - the quest for optimal lesion preparation.AsiaIntervention · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) have strong supporting evidence for use in small coronary vessels, while sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) have shown variable angiographic results, raising questions about their overall effectiveness. Aims: The PICCOLETO VI study aimed to compare the angiographic and physiological outcomes of various PCB and SCB technologies in treating Methods: This international, multicentre study included patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and had elective angiographic follow-up 5-9 months later. Angiographic and physiological assessments were performed by a core laboratory, including Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR). Results: Based on a cohort of 293 patients, 227 lesions treated either with a PCB (n=148) or an SCB (n=79) were included. No differences in terms of baseline clinical or angiographic characteristics were reported between the two cohorts. PCB showed lower late lumen loss (-0.05±0.56 mm vs +0.10±0.59 mm; p=0.05) and a higher prevalence of late lumen enlargement (58.1% vs 40.5%; p=0.01). The primary endpoint of late functional loss was not statistically different, with a trend in favour of PCB (-0.01±0.15 vs +0.03±0.13; p=0.09). There was no difference in terms of target lesion failure, with a higher rate of ischaemia-inducing vessels at follow-up in the SCB group (14.9% vs 26.6%; p=0.03). A μFR <=0.86 following drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment emerged as a reliable cutoff for predicting follow-up ischaemia, with an accuracy of 80%, whereas no significant interaction was observed for a post-DCB angiographic degree of stenosis >=30%. Conclusions: In this direct comparison between two classes of DCB, late functional loss was comparable between PCB and SCB, with PCB confirming superior angiographic performance.
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.