ArticleCurrent controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine2000
Long-term outcome after coronary stenting.
Article in Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk investigation of in-stent restenosis after initial implantation of intracoronary drug-eluting stent in patients with coronary heart disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Factors Affecting In-stent Restenosis in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty.Galen medical journal · 2018Review
- Performance of distributed multiscale simulations.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2014Article
- Flexible composition and execution of high performance, high fidelity multiscale biomedical simulations.Interface focus · 2013Article
- Multi-scale simulations of the dynamics of in-stent restenosis: impact of stent deployment and design.Interface focus · 2011Article
- Compliance of a cobalt chromium coronary stent alloy--the COVIS trial.Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present review assesses the data on long-term outcome after coronary stenting. Histological, angiographical and intravascular imaging data have shown that the insertion of stents constitutes only a transient stimulus to lumen renarrowing, that this process is almost complete at 6 months and that a certain degree of neointima regression is also possible after this time. Clinical data have confirmed the sustained benefit of stenting in the long term. Careful selection of optimal stent designs and application of the recent advances in adjunctive pharmacological therapy are currently effective strategies to improve both short-and long-term results with coronary stenting. However, further efforts are needed and are ongoing to combat restenosis, a process that counters the excellent short-term results of stenting in the long term.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.