ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2016
How Do We Treat Complex Calcified Coronary Artery Disease?
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravascular Imaging and Pathological Features of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in Atherosclerotic Porcine Peripheral Arteries.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2025Article
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Not Superior to Optimal Medical Therapy in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Practice Pattern Variation in Adoption of New and Evolving Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2023Article
- Hemodynamic alternations following stent deployment and post-dilation in a heavily calcified coronary artery: In silico and ex-vivo approaches.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Triple-Guidewire Technique for Treating Stent Underexpansion in Severely Calcified Coronary Artery Lesions.Texas Heart Institute journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementDespite significant advances in treatment of coronary artery disease and improvements in interventional devices and techniques, the subset of obstructive calcified coronary artery disease remains challenging to treat. Percutaneous treatment of these lesions results in increased rates of procedural complications, as well as a higher risk of stent underexpansion and malapposition. This is associated with higher rates of restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Several interventional strategies and technologies have been developed to improve lesion preparation and successful stent implantation. This includes use of cutting and scoring balloons and atherectomy devices. Several intravascular imaging techniques have also shown to have value in the treatment of complex calcified coronary lesions. These advances have improved the treatment of patients with calcified coronary disease who are often difficult to treat and frequently excluded from large randomized trials. Thoughtful, and not routine, use of rotational atherectomy can be helpful in pre-treating severely calcified lesions to achieve successful stent delivery. Orbital atherectomy represents a newer advancement in the atherectomy approach that may be beneficial in the treatment of calcified coronary disease, but further trials are needed to support its routine use.
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.