ArticleHerz2019
[Coronary restenosis].
Article in Herz, 2019. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanomedicine for Diagnosis and Treatment of Atherosclerosis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Association of the DNA Methyltransferase and Folate Cycle Enzymes' Gene Polymorphisms with Coronary Restenosis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Exosomes derived from mesenchymal stem cells inhibit neointimal hyperplasia by activating the Erk1/2 signalling pathway in rats.Stem cell research & therapy · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary restenosis is the answer of the arterial wall to a mechanical violation through balloon angioplasty, bare-metal (BM) stent implantation or rotational atherectomy through repeated narrowing. It has great clinical and prognostic relevance and occurs in approximately 30% of non-coated stents and in 10% of coated coronary stents. The wound healing process that precedes restenosis includes inflammatory reactions, cellular proliferation and remodeling of the arterial wall, where protein synthesis of the extracellular matrix is initiated. The inflammatory reaction activates platelets, leucocytes and monocytes and stimulates smooth muscle cells. The medications on the drug-eluting stents (rapamycin, paclitaxel, sirolimus, evarolimus and zotarolimus) inhibit cell division, are cytotoxic and only these sustainably influence restenosis. Whether they play a role in neoatherosclerosis needs to be determined. The mechanism of restenosis with implantation of drug-eluting stents is heterogeneous and associated with the deposition of T‑lymphocytes and fibrin. Risk factors for the development of restenosis include mechanical factors, such as incorrect apposition and expansion of stents, inflammation, diabetes mellitus, genetic factors, bypass operations, stent length and stent diameter. The restenosis rate is lower with drug-eluting stents and must be considered differently between the drug-eluting stents. Drug-eluting stents of the latest generation and drug-coated balloons (DCB) showed the best clinical and angiographic results for in-stent restenosis in randomized trials. The BM and older first-generation drug-eluting stents should be avoided. Further randomized studies are needed.
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.