ArticlePloS one2017
Clinical outcomes in patients treated for coronary in-stent restenosis with drug-eluting balloons: Impact of high platelet reactivity.
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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Preliminary Assessment of a Mortality Risk Score in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein in In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Review
- Platelets in In-stent Restenosis: From Fundamental Role to Possible Prognostic Application.Current cardiology reviews · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of high platelet reactivity (HPR) on clinical outcomes after elective percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with drug-eluting balloons (DEB) due to in-stent restenosis (ISR) is unknown.
objectiveWe sought to evaluate the prognostic importance of HPR together with conventional risk factors in patients treated with DEB.
methodsPatients treated with DEB due to ISR were enrolled in a single-centre, prospective registry between October 2009 and March 2015. Only patients with recent myocardial infarction (MI) received prasugrel, others were treated with clopidogrel. HPR was defined as an ADP-test >46U with the Multiplate assay and no adjustments were done based on results. The primary endpoint of the study was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, MI, any revascularization or stroke during one-year follow-up.
results194 stable angina patients were recruited of whom 90% were treated with clopidogrel. Clinical characteristics and procedural data were available for all patients; while platelet function testing was performed in 152 subjects of whom 32 (21%) had HPR. Patients with HPR had a higher risk for the primary endpoint (HR: 2.45; CI: 1.01-5.92; p = 0.03). The difference was primarily driven by a higher risk for revascularization and MI. According to the multivariate analysis, HPR remained a significant, independent predictor of the primary endpoint (HR: 2.88; CI: 1.02-8.14; p = 0.04), while total DEB length and statin treatment were other independent correlates of the primary outcome.
conclusionHPR was found to be an independent predictor of repeat revascularization and MI among elective patients with ISR undergoing PCI with DEB.
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.