ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2018
Differences between first-generation and second-generation drug-eluting stent regarding in-stent neoatherosclerosis characteristics: an optical coherence tomography analysis.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of first-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in calcified coronary lesions: A meta-analysis.Narra J · 2025Pooled it
- In-Stent Restenosis Pathophysiology and Risk Factors: A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Neoatherosclerosis: A Distinctive Pathological Mechanism of Stent Failure.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of Neoatherosclerosis and Neovascularization of Restenosis after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: An Optical Coherence Tomography Study.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- In Stent Neo-Atherosclerosis: Pathophysiology, Clinical Implications, Prevention, and Therapeutic Approaches.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Cardiovascular imaging 2018 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
- Complete and incomplete revascularization in non-ST segment myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: long-term outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents.Heart and vessels · 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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared first-generation and second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) with respect to neoatherosclerosis using optical coherence tomography or optical frequency domain imaging. In-stent restenoses in 102 first-generation and 114 second-generation DES were retrospectively assessed. Neoatherosclerosis, which was defined as the presence of lipid-laden neointima or calcification inside a stent, was observed in 33 (27.2%) and 31 (32.4%) lesions in the first-generation and second-generation DES respectively. In the first-generation DES group, the lipid length was significantly longer (5.5 ± 3.8 vs. 3.1 ± 2.1 mm, P = 0.0007), the lipid arc was significantly larger (324 ± 70° vs. 250 ± 94°, P = 0.002), the prevalence of a 360° lipid arc was significantly greater (58 vs. 31%, P = 0.03), and the fibrous cap was significantly thinner (153 ± 85 vs. 211 ± 95 µm, P = 0.02) compared with those in the second-generation DES group. These differences remained significant after adjusting for the age of the stent (lipid length: P < 0.001; lipid arc: P = 0.019; and fibrous cap thickness: P < 0.001). The proliferation course and stability of neoatherosclerosis over time might be superior in second-generation DES.
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.