ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2020
Very late-phase vascular response after everolimus-eluting stent implantation assessed by optical coherence tomography.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Long-term safety of second generation drug-eluting stents (DES) has not yet been evaluated. We sought to evaluate the very late phase (> 3 years) vascular response after second generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) as compared with first generation sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) by using optical coherence tomography (OCT). We examined the vascular response in 39 patients with a total of 55 DESs [31 EESs (mean 54 months after stenting) and 24 first generation SES (mean 66 months after stenting)] by OCT. The frequency of lesions with any malapposed stent struts (19% vs. 46%, p = 0.035) and evagination (6% vs. 42%, p = 0.002) was significantly lower. Segments with malapposed stent struts were significantly shorter (0.4 ± 0.9 mm vs. 1.9 ± 3.5 mm, p = 0.024), maximal malapposition area and malapposition volume were significantly smaller (0.26 ± 0.38 mm
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.