ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2012
Optical coherence tomography-based evaluation of malapposed strut coverage after drug-eluting stent implantation.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vulnerable struts with CRE8, Biomatrix and Xience stents assessed with OCT and their correlation with clinical variables at 6-month follow-up: the CREBX-OCT study.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Trial
- Article
- Imaging of coronary atherosclerosis - evolution towards new treatment strategies.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2016Review
- Stent evaluation with optical coherence tomography.Yonsei medical journal · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimal data exist regarding the use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) to evaluate malapposed strut coverage following implantation of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Follow-up OCT examination after DES implantation was performed in 368 patients with 406 lesions at our institute. We assessed the status of malapposed strut coverage that was identified via OCT in 92 (23 %) lesions. An absence of uncovered struts among malapposed struts was defined as completely covered (CC) malapposition; the presence of uncovered struts was defined as incompletely covered (IC) malapposition. Among the 92 lesions with malapposed DES struts, CC malapposition was detected in 47 lesions (51 %). Compared to lesions with IC malapposition (n = 45, 49 %), lesions with CC malapposition showed a significantly lower percentage of uncovered struts among all the struts (14.9 ± 14.5 vs. 4.4 ± 8.5 %, respectively, p < 0.001) and among the other well-apposed struts without malapposition (12.7 ± 12.8 vs. 4.5 ± 8.7 %, respectively, p = 0.001). The degree of malapposed strut coverage was significantly different according to the type of DES; new-generation DESs such as everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents showed a higher incidence of CC malapposition, compared to first-generation DESs such as sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents (82 vs. 34 %, respectively, p < 0.001). This study showed the complete coverage in about 50 % of the lesions with malapposed DES struts on follow-up OCT. The degree of malapposed DES strut coverage was strongly affected by the type of implanted DESs.
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.