ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2021
Long-term imaging follow-up to evaluate restenosis in patients with carotid stenosis after angioplasty and stenting.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention of in-stent restenosis with drug-eluting balloons in patients with postirradiated carotid stenosis accepting percutaneous angioplasty and stenting.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2023Trial
- Carotid Artery Stenting Intervention to Enhance Global Brain Blood Flow and Cognition in Carotid Artery Disease: Preliminary Findings from a Prospective Follow-Up MRI Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Predictive Utility of PLR and Platelet-to-LDL Ratio for in-Stent Restenosis Following Carotid Artery Stenting.Vascular health and risk management · 2025Article
- Treatment of In-stent Restenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery Using Drug-eluting Balloons.Clinical neuroradiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStent patency after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) correlates not only with stroke prevention but also with improvements in cognition and quality of life by positively influencing cerebral perfusion. The long-term outcomes of CAS after more than 5 years have still not been well described. This retrospective study was designed to evaluate the stent patency and significant restenosis (SR) after CAS with more than 5 years of follow-up.
methodsBetween 2006 and 2012, 118 patients with carotid stenosis who underwent 131 CAS procedures with regular annual imaging follow-up for more than 5 years were enrolled. We evaluated their demographic characteristics and the risk factors related to stent restenosis. Patients with SR (restenosis ≥ 50%) were compared with those with no significant restenosis (NSR, patency or restenosis < 50%) to identify the restenosis predictors and restenosis-free survival.
resultsOf the 131 CAS procedures, 16.0% (21/131) had SR. A history of head and neck radiotherapy (HNRT) was a predictor for SR (HR, 6.352; 95% CI, 2.504-16.112; p < 0.001) and was associated with shorter restenosis-free survival (log-rank test p value < 0.001, median time of restenosis-free survival was 38 months). Left-sided stenting was an associated factor for SR (HR, 3.007; 95% CI, 1.068-8.467; p = 0.037) with a trend of less restenosis-free survival (log-rank test p value 0.067).
conclusionBoth HNRT and left-sided carotid stenosis were predictors of SR after CAS in more than 5 years of long-term follow-up. Restenosis-free survival was significantly shorter in patients with prior HNRT than in patients without previous irradiation treatment. We suggest close follow-up and aggressive medical treatment for patients with prior HNRT and left-sided carotid stenosis undergoing CAS.
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.