ArticleThe Canadian journal of cardiology
The disutility of restenosis--the impact of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention on quality of life.
Article in The Canadian journal of cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health State Utility Values Associated with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Vignette-Based Approach.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Economic evaluation of process utility: elucidating preferences for a non-invasive procedure to treat restenosis.Health economics review · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary stenting is a common medical procedure that is used to treat the symptoms of both stable angina and acute coronary syndromes. Drugeluting stents (DES) decrease restenosis and repeat revascularization procedures but are more expensive than bare-metal stents. A proper cost-effectiveness analysis of DES requires an understanding of the health value patients place on the avoidance of restenosis accompanied by a repeat PCI.
objectiveTo estimate quality-of-life (QoL) benefits ascribed to avoiding the return of coronary symptoms and the need for a repeat revascularization procedure.
methodsA prospective, single-centre study was conducted involving PCI patients. A time trade-off (TTO) question, based on a hypothetical restricted lifespan of 10 years, was used to estimate the QoL benefits patients attach to the avoidance of recurrent symptoms and a repeat PCI. This was accomplished by interviewing the patients by telephone, two weeks post-PCI. The TTO question was also administered to the catheterization laboratory staff.
resultsBetween January and March 2007, and between April and June 2008, 103 interviews were completed. The median TTO was zero weeks (interquartile range zero to 1.7 weeks). Six interventional cardiologists and eight cardiac catheterization nurses reported a similar median disutility.
conclusionDespite acknowledgement of the substantial clinical benefits of DES, the results of the present study suggest that patients do not place a great disutility on avoiding restenosis, thereby providing little QoL justification for the large incremental cost associated with this technology.
Indexed as
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.