ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2016
Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Lesions Exhibiting Focal and Segmental Peri-Stent Contrast Staining.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2016. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aneurysmal degeneration of fluoropolymer-coated paclitaxel-eluting stent in the superficial femoral artery: a rising concern.CVIR endovascular · 2021Article
- Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Lesions Exhibiting Focal and Segmental Peri-Stent Contrast Staining.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeri-stent contrast staining (PSS) after metallic drug-eluting stent deployment is associated with target lesion revascularization and very late stent thrombosis. However, the type of PSS that influences the clinical outcomes is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to reveal which PSS type was influencing clinical outcomes. METHODS AND
resultsThis study included 5580 de novo lesions of 4405 patients who were implanted with a first- or second-generation drug-eluting stent and who were evaluated using follow-up angiography within 12 months after stent implantation. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients divided into focal PSS and segmental PSS groups for 6 years after stent implantation. Total PSS was observed in 97 lesions (2.2%), of which 42 and 55 lesions were focal and segmental PSS, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for intraoperative chronic total occlusion (segmental PSS=47.3% versus focal PSS=11.9%, P=0.0001). The incidence of segmental PSS tended to be higher in patients with a first-generation drug-eluting stent (83.6% versus 16.4%, P=0.05). The cumulative incidence of stent thrombosis in the 6 years of segmental PSS group was significantly higher than that of the focal PSS group (13.9% versus 0%, P=0.04). The cumulative incidence of overall target lesion revascularization for restenosis, excluding target lesion revascularization procedures for stent thrombosis, was significantly higher in the segmental PSS group (38.0% versus 0%, P=0.01).
conclusionsThe incidence of segmental PSS tended to be higher in patients with a first-generation drug-eluting stent and appeared to be significantly associated with target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis.
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.