ArticleHeart and vessels2016
Comparison of neointimal coverage and extra-stent lumen between sirolimus and everolimus-eluting stent using optical coherence tomography.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The external lumen of a stent [defined as extra-stent lumen (ESL)] assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) may be related to the risk of thrombus formation after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation. An everolimus-eluting stent (EES) might provide relatively minimal inflammatory reaction and appropriate neointimal coverage. The purpose of this study was to compare the neointimal thickness and ESL between SES and EES. Patients who underwent OCT examination more than 7 months after either SES or EES implantation were enrolled. Stent area (SA), lumen area (LA), neointimal area (NIA) and neointimal thickness (NIT) of each strut were measured at 1-mm intervals between stented segments. The area, angle (summation per cross-section) and depth (maximum distance from adjacent vessel surface to the outline of stent) of ESL were analyzed. A total of 49 lesions were included (SES n = 20, EES n = 29). Mean follow-up period was 11 months. A total of 998 cross-sections and 9874 struts were analyzed. There were no differences in stent area, lumen area and neointimal area (SA: 6.01 ± 1.60 vs. 6.02 ± 1.40 mm(2), p = 0.572, LA: 5.37 ± 1.52 vs. 5.29 ± 1.34 mm(2), p = 0.692, NIA: 0.64 ± 0.49 vs. 0.72 ± 0.37 mm(2), p = 0.493). Mean NIT of SES and EES were 0.11 ± 0.05 and 0.10 ± 0.05 mm, respectively (p = 0.367). Conversely, area, angle and depth of ESL in SES group were significantly greater than those in EES group (0.20 ± 0.39 vs. 0.03 ± 0.09 mm(2), p < 0.001, 56.2 ± 59.1° vs. 20.1 ± 41.9°, p < 0.001, 0.10 ± 0.09 vs. 0.03 ± 0.03 mm, p < 0.001). OCT showed that the efficacy of neointimal growth suppression is similar between SES and EES, whereas the adverse vascular response after EES implantation is smaller than that after SES implantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25614415What 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.