ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2010
Carotid artery interventions for restenosis after prior stenting: is it different from interventions of de novo lesions? Results from the carotid artery stent (CAS)--registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK).
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of the Carotid In-stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- First in vitro and in vivo results of an anti-human CD133-antibody coated coronary stent in the porcine model.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2013Article
- The role of endovascular expertise in carotid artery stenting: results from the ALKK-CAS-Registry in 5,535 patients.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare characteristics and outcome of patients with re-stenoses after prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) treated with repeat carotid interventions (Re-CI) with CAS for de novo lesions.
backgroundThe treatment of re-stenosis is a major problem in vascular interventions. Patients with re-stenoses after prior CAS treated with Re-CI are not well defined.
methodsWe analyzed data from the prospective ALKK CAS Registry.
resultsOut of 3,817 CAS procedures 95 were intended in 93 patients (2.5%) for a restenosis after prior CAS and 3,722 CAS in 3,655 patients (97.5%) for a de novo stenosis. There was no difference in age (p = 0.302) or distribution of gender (p = 0.545) between the two groups. Patients treated for a restenosis after CAS were less likely to be treated for a symptomatic lesion (22.7 vs. 40.1%, p = 0.001). Coronary heart disease (p = 0.017), peripheral arterial disease (p < 0.001) as well as diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004) were more prevalent in the restenosis group. Lesions were less complicated in restenosis patients, with less ulcers (7.4 vs. 19.9%, p = 0.003) and less severe calcifications (7.4 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001). The intended interventions were more often not performed in the Re-CI group (9.5 vs. 3.3%; p = 0.001). In-hospital, the stroke or death rate was 0% in the Re-CI group as compared to 3.1% in the de novo group (p = 0.115).
conclusionsPatients treated with Re-CI for repeat stenoses after prior CAS represent 2.5% of current CAS patients. Although representing a subgroup with more concomitant diseases, Re-CI seems to be associated with lower event rates as compared to CAS for de novo lesions.
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.