ReviewThe American journal of case reports2015
Percutaneous Treatment of Recurrent In-Stent Restenosis of Carotid Artery Stenting: A Case Report and State-of-the-Art Review.
Review in The American journal of case reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Zinc-Finger Transcription Factor of A20 Suppresses Restenosis in Sprague Dawley Rats after Carotid Injury via the PPARα Pathway.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2017Article
- Carotid endarterectomy for treatment of carotid in-stent restenosis: long-term follow-up results and surgery experiences from one single centre.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2017Article
- Simultaneous Bilateral Carotid Stenting for Symptomatic Bilateral High-Grade Carotid Stenosis: A Retrospective Clinical Investigation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a poorly described phenomenon. Studies have reported a variable incidence ranging from 4% to 19.7% at 1 year of follow-up. Doppler Ultrasound (DUS) is now routinely used in the follow-up after CAS and endarterectomy with optimal accuracy in detecting significant restenosis, compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA). CASE REPORT: We reported the case of a 76-year-old patient with evidence of recurrent severe in-stent restenosis (ISR) of the left internal carotid artery (ICA). In April 2007, due to evidence at DUS of severe left ICA disease, the patient underwent CAS. In January 2009, due to DUS evidence of severe ISR, the patient underwent balloon angioplasty. In September 2011, DUS showed a severe ISR with a peak systolic velocity (PSV) of 436 cm/s; in June 2012 angiography showed a sub-expanded stent in the middle medial side with severe ISR (70%). Multiple inflations were performed and a slight residual sub-expansion of the lateral side of the stent was observed. Post-procedural DUS showed a reduction of PSV to 283 cm/s and 266 cm/s at 1-month follow-up. An increasing value (322 cm/s) was noticed at 3-month follow-up DUS, while at 6-month follow-up DUS showed an important increase to 483 cm/s. Strict follow-up was adopted because of the patient's refusal of further treatment.
conclusionsCriteria for diagnosis of restenosis are not well established. The optimal treatment is still debated and no indications have been established, due to the lack of sufficient data. Approaches to ISR include percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, cutting-balloon angioplasty (CB-PTA), stenting, and drug-eluting balloon (DEB) angioplasty. Several studies indicate that endovascular treatment, including balloon angioplasty and (CB-PTA) alone or in conjunction with stenting, is the preferred strategy.
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.