↓ Skip to main content

Drug eluting balloons as stand alone procedure for coronary bifurcational lesions: results of the randomized multicenter PEPCAD-BIF trial

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Drug eluting balloons as stand alone procedure for coronary bifurcational lesions: results of the randomized multicenter PEPCAD-BIF trial
Published in
Clinical Research in Cardiology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00392-015-0957-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Franz X. Kleber, Harald Rittger, Josef Ludwig, Antonia Schulz, Detlef G. Mathey, Michael Boxberger, Ralf Degenhardt, Bruno Scheller, Ruth H. Strasser

Abstract

We set out to investigate the benefit of distal main or side branch treatment with a DCB compared to POBA in coronary bifurcation lesions. The standard treatment of bifurcation lesions is application of a DES to the main branch with provisional side branch stenting. While this resulted in considerable improvement in overall MACE rate suboptimal side branch results remained a problem. The study was performed from 2011 to 2013 in six German centers. Native bifurcation lesions were included if side branch vessel diameter was ≥2 and ≤3.5 mm and no proximal main branch lesions was found. After successful predilatation randomization was performed to either DCB application or no further treatment. Follow-up angiograms for QCA analysis were done after 9 months. Primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL). 64 patients were successfully randomized. Minimal lumen diameter and grade of stenosis were equal in both groups. Only five stents were used as bail out. Angiographic follow-up was achieved in 75 % of patients. No patient died. There was one NSTEMI in the POBA group. Restenosis rate was 6 % in the DCB group vs 26 % in the POBA group (p = 0.045). TLR was necessary in one patient of the DCB group vs three patients of the POBA. The primary endpoint LLL was 0.13 mm in the DCB vs 0.51 mm in the POBA group (p = 0.013). In bifurcation lesions that show only class A or B dissection and recoil not beyond 30 % the use of DCBs is a sound strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 41 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 45 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,302,535
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#718
of 811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#332,255
of 395,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.