We only have this paper's title and publication details.
Read it at the sourceCaptured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“Surprisingly, in such a clinically-powered study, the DCB tested was not associated with any reduction in TLR, so conclusions on how this strategy led to lower 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events seem a bit out of context.”
“When unpacking the composite endpoint, it becomes clear that the reduction in MACE with DCBs was driven by target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) without subsequent target lesion revascularization. This raises the question, why would an MI not lead to revascularization?”
“Although the incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction did not differ significantly between groups, the NCB group exhibited a higher rate of spontaneous myocardial infarction. This suggests that repeated side branch dilatation with a DCB may reduce myocardial infarction risk. However, the underlying mechanisms explaining the apparent dissociation between increased myocardial infarction and revascularization remain unclear.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lazăr et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: