Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31673850›Full record

Observational studyThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2020

Neointimal characteristics comparison between biodegradable-polymer and durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: 3-month follow-up optical coherence tomography light property analysis from the RESTORE registry.

Tomoaki Kobayashi, Yohei Sotomi, Satoshi Suzuki, Yuma Hamanaka, Shimpei Nakatani, Jouke Dijkstra, Yoshinobu Onuma, Patrick W Serruys, Yasushi Sakata, Atsushi Hirayama and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Tomoaki KobayashiDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31, Kitayama, Tennoji, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan.
Yohei SotomiDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31, Kitayama, Tennoji, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan. sotomiyohei@gmail.com.
Satoshi SuzukiDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31, Kitayama, Tennoji, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan.
Yuma HamanakaDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31, Kitayama, Tennoji, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan.
Shimpei NakataniDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31, Kitayama, Tennoji, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan.
Jouke DijkstraDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Yoshinobu OnumaThoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Patrick W SerruysInternational Centre for Circulatory Health, NHLI, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Yasushi SakataDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Atsushi HirayamaDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31, Kitayama, Tennoji, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan.
Yoshiharu HiguchiDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31, Kitayama, Tennoji, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan.
Osaka Police Hospital · JPErasmus University Rotterdam · NLImperial College London · GBLeiden University Medical Center · NLOsaka University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to quantitatively assess a possible difference of the neointimal quality between biodegradable polymer- (BP-) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DESs). We conducted a single-center all-comer prospective cohort study: the RESTORE registry (UMIN000033009). All patients who received successful OCT examination at planned 3-month follow-up after DES implantation were analyzed. Study population was divided into 2 groups, BP-DES versus DP-DES groups. We evaluated standard OCT variables, coverage percent, and the quantitative light property values including light intensity, attenuation, and backscatter. We performed OCT analyses of 121 lesions in 98 patients (BP-DES 55 lesions in 51 patients vs. DP-DES 66 lesions in DP-DES 53 patients). Lesion and procedural characteristics were overall well-balanced between both groups. At 3-month follow-up, neointimal thickness (BP-DES 49.3 [38.2, 57.7] µm versus DP-DES 54.7 [45.1, 70.7] µm, p = 0.059) and coverage percent (BP-DES 94.5 [89.8, 97.0]% vs. DP-DES 95.8 [91.1, 98.1]%, p = 0.083) did not significantly differ. Light intensity of superficial neointima in the BP-DES was lower than that in the DP-DES, whereas that of deep neointima did not differ between both groups. Both superficial and deep neointima of the BP-DES presented significantly lower light attenuation and backscatter than those of the DP-DES did. Almost complete coverage at 3 months in both contemporary BP- and DP-DES would support the ultra-short DAPT strategy in the upcoming decade. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the neointimal characteristics on OCT light property 3 months after BP- versus DP-DES implantation.Trial Registration UMIN000033009.

Indexed as

Absorbable ImplantsDrug-Eluting StentsNeointimaTomography, Optical CoherenceAgedCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPolymersPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesPolymersBiodegradable polymerDrug-eluting stentDurable polymerLight property analysisOptical coherence tomography

Identifiers

PMID31673850
OpenAlexW2985041555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.