MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413128320 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2025-bcs.93

2-055 Drug coated balloons- are they effective in acute angioplasty? A single centre experience

2025· article· en· W4413128320 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Wahab, Omar Ali, Sana Fatima, Ayesha Aslam, Abdullah Khalil, Yvonne Phillipson, J Winter, Hossam Abuomara, Veeran Subramaniam, Jeremy Butts, Azeem S Sheikh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsNational Defence Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrugAngioplastyMedicineMedical emergencyInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Since introduction in 2004, Drug Coated Balloons (DCB) have played key role in management of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and improving cardiovascular outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).<sup>1</sup> Current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend use of DCB for ISR (Class 1A).<sup>2</sup> However, there is limited understanding in their role for small vessel and bifurcation disease angioplasty. <h3>Methods</h3> Procedural data of all DCB deployed between March 2022 to May 2024 at Calderdale Royal Hospital, was collected from patient’s hospital electronic health records. Baseline co-morbidities, indication for angiogram, DCB size and length, use of intra-coronary assessment and cardiovascular outcomes till date, were recorded. All procedures deployed SeQuent Please Neo DCBs. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 221 patients underwent (Male 78.7%) coronary angioplasty involving DCB. Ninety-one (41.2%) patients underwent sole DCB angioplasty, in comparison to 130 (58.8%) patients undergoing DCB in conjunction with Drug Eluting Stent (DES). Non-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) (n=103, 46.6%) was the commonest indication for patients undergoing invasive angiogram. Forty-six (20.8%) of total cohort had DCB’s deployed for in-stent restenosis (ISR) whereas majority underwent DCB strategy for angiographic small vessel disease ( n=93, 42.2%) as well as prognostic bifurcation of main vessels and their associated side branches (n=49, 22.2%). Six and 12-month follow up of cardiovascular outcomes highlighted encouraging results with respect to patients undergoing further revascularisation post DCB (n=4, 1.8%), cardiovascular hospitalisation (n=20, 9%) and cardiovascular mortality (n=0). <h3>Conclusion</h3> In this single centre retrospective analysis, use of DCB in treatment of ISR, small vessel disease and prognostic bifurcation lesions concludes encouraging results with respect to cardiovascular endpoints. Whether DCB can replace DES in proximal lesion as denovo strategy, is still to be further explored. <h3>References</h3> Belkacemi A, Agostoni P, Voskuil M, <i>et al</i>. Drug-eluting balloons in coronary artery disease-current and future perspectives. ICR. 2011. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, <i>et al</i>. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. <i>Eur Heart J</i>. 2019.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207