ReviewAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
Systematic review on the effects of drug-coated balloon therapy on plaque morphology in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Review in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the treatment of diseased coronary arteries, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged as a "leave nothing behind" alternative to drug-eluting stents, yet their effects on coronary plaque morphology in Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) are not well characterised. This systematic review evaluates the impact of DCB therapy on plaque morphology in patients presenting with ACS. Method: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ScienceDirect identified studies reporting plaque-related outcomes following DCB treatment in adult patients with ACS. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, incorporating intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) or angiographic assessments of plaque burden, plaque volume, plaque area, lipid burden, or calcification. Results: Across comparative and non-comparative studies, DCB therapy was consistently associated with favourable imaging changes, including reductions in plaque area, plaque burden, or plaque atheroma volume, and increased lumen dimensions. In studies assessing compositional characteristics, DCB therapy was linked with reductions in lipid core burden and lower calcification scores compared with stent-based strategies. However, heterogeneity in study design, imaging methods, and outcome reporting limits direct comparison between studies, and causality cannot be conclusively inferred. Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that DCB therapy may favourably modify plaque morphology in ACS, influencing plaque size and composition. The potential for DCBs to promote plaque regression, reduce lipid burden, and facilitate positive vascular remodelling warrants further investigation in larger, dedicated ACS cohorts. Future studies integrating advanced imaging and molecular profiling may clarify mechanistic pathways and identify patient groups most likely to benefit from DCB-based strategies.
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.