ArticlePloS one2017
Neoatherosclerosis development following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in diabetic and non-diabetic swine.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Novel Murine Model of In-Stent Neoatherosclerosis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Induced Human-like Coronary Stenosis in Hypercholesterolemic PCSK9 Minipigs.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2025Article
- Neoatherosclerosis: A Distinctive Pathological Mechanism of Stent Failure.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Intravascular Polarimetry: Clinical Translation and Future Applications of Catheter-Based Polarization Sensitive Optical Frequency Domain Imaging.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Review
- Intravascular Polarimetry for Tissue Characterization of Coronary Atherosclerosis.Circulation reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDM remains a risk factor for poor outcome after stent-implantation, but little is known if and how DM affects the vascular response to BVS.
aimThe aim of our study was to examine coronary responses to bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in swine with and without diabetes mellitus fed a 'fast-food' diet (FF-DM and FF-NDM, respectively) by sequential optical coherence tomography (OCT)-imaging and histology.
methodsFifteen male swine were evaluated. Eight received streptozotocin-injection to induce DM. After 9 months (M), 32 single BVS were implanted in epicardial arteries with a stent to artery (S/A)-ratio of 1.1:1 under quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and OCT guidance. Lumen, scaffold, neointimal coverage and composition were assessed by QCA, OCT and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) pre- and/or post-procedure, at 3M and 6M. Additionally, polarization-sensitive (PS)-OCT was performed in 7 swine at 6M. After sacrifice at 3M and 6M, histology and polymer degradation analysis were performed.
resultsLate lumen loss was high (~60%) within the first 3M after BVS-implantation (P<0.01 FF-DM vs. FF-NDM) and stabilized between 3M and 6M (<5% change in FF-DM, ~10% in FF-NDM; P>0.20). Neointimal coverage was highly heterogeneous in all swine (DM vs. NDM P>0.05), with focal lipid accumulation, irregular collagen distribution and neointimal calcification. Likewise, polymer mass loss was low (~2% at 3M, ~5% at 6M;P>0.20) and not associated with DM or inflammation.
conclusionScaffold coverage showed signs of neo-atherosclerosis in all FF-DM and FF-NDM swine, scaffold polymer was preserved and the vascular response to BVS was not influenced by diabetes.
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.