ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2017
In-stent restenosis after interventional treatment of carotid artery stenoses: a long-term follow-up of a single center cohort.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2017. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of In-stent Restenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery Using Drug-eluting Balloons.Clinical neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2022Article
- The SAPPHIRE criteria, history of myocardial infarction and diabetes predict adverse outcomes following carotid endarterectomy similar to stenting.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhereas in-stent restenosis (ISR) is widely discussed after coronary stenting procedures, this phenomenon is a considerable problem after interventional treatment of carotid artery stenosis as well. We sought to quantify ISR rate and to identify important respective risk factors in our cohort.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data of our carotid artery stenting database comprising 1165 angiographically successful interventional procedures during the last 19 years. Significant ISR was assessed by Doppler ultrasound and defined as a flow velocity exceeding 300 cm/s representing a lumen narrowing >70%. Examinations were performed the day after intervention, at follow-up visits 1, 6 and 12 months after index hospitalization and once a year afterwards.
resultsThirty-nine patients (3.4%) developed a significant ISR > 70% during the follow-up period (median 19.6 months, IQR 5.1-49.6 months). In 13 of them, restenosis was caused by a mechanical collapse (stent crush) of the implanted stent. All patients with significant ISR were free of neurological events during follow-up and 31 patients underwent a stent-in-stent implantation. We found a shorter stent length, a narrower stent diameter, performance of post-dilatation as well as stent type to significantly influence development of ISR.
conclusionISR > 70% after carotid artery stenting is a rare finding also during long-term follow-up. Especially in patients treated with balloon-expandable stents, post-dilatation reduced ISR significantly. As ISR was rare and clinically benign, this technique seems to remain a good therapy option in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis.
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.