Observational studyHeart and vessels2021
Drug-coated stent implantation vs. bypass surgery for in-stent occlusion after femoropopliteal stenting.
Observational study in Heart and vessels, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytokine and Oxidative Stress Imbalances in Relation to Complex Coronary Lesions in Elderly Patients.Current vascular pharmacology · 2025Article
- Clinical outcome of endovascular therapy using a VIABAHN VBX-covered stent for complex aortoiliac artery disease: the AVOCADO II study.Heart and vessels · 2023Observational
- Meta-analysis of outcomes from drug-eluting stent implantation in infrapopliteal arteries.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- The Diagnostic Value of Circulating Biomarkers and Role of Drug-Coated Balloons for In-Stent Restenosis in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Diabetes and restenosis.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2022Review
- Predictor analysis of 1-year restenosis after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for femoropopliteal stenotic lesions using intravascular ultrasound.Heart and vessels · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal revascularization for in-stent occlusion (ISO) lesions after femoropopliteal (FP) bare-nitinol stenting has not been established. We, therefore, investigated the comparison between drug-coated stent (DCS) implantation and bypass surgery (BSX) for ISO lesions after FP bare-nitinol stenting. This study was a dual-center, observational study from January 2004 to December 2015. A total of 172 ISO lesions were observed, and after excluding 120 ISO lesions, 52 ISO lesions (50 patients; mean age, 71.0 ± 9.2 years; male, 59.6%) after FP bare-nitinol stenting were enrolled. The included patients with clinical symptoms underwent either DCS implantation (n = 28) or BSX (n = 22). The primary endpoint was recurrent in-stent restenosis (ReISR); secondary endpoints were recurrent target lesion revascularization (ReTLR), recurrent occlusion (reocclusion) and major adverse limb events (MALE), and perioperative complications (POCs), respectively. ReISR or reocclusion was defined as ISR or occlusion after TLR. Stent restenosis was defined as a peak systolic velocity ratio (PSVR) > 2.4 on a duplex scan or ≥ 50% stenosis on angiography. Graft restenosis was defined as a PSV > 300 cm/s and velocity ratio 3.5 or uniformly low PSV < 45 cm/s throughout the entire graft based on graft surveillance. The mean follow-up period was 36.6 ± 25.5 months. At 2 years, the rates of freedom from ReISR, ReTLR, and MALE were not significantly different between the DCS implantation and BSX groups (68.9% vs. 73.7%, p = 0.81; 84.7% vs. 73.7%, p = 0.45; 84.7% vs. 78.6%, p = 0.60, respectively). However, the freedom from reocclusion rate was significantly lower in the DCS implantation group (81.6% vs. 100%, p = 0.04). The occurrence of POCs was not significantly different between the DCS implantation and BSX groups (7.1% vs 4.2%, p = 1.0). Although BSX was the gold-standard therapy for ISO lesions after FP bare-nitinol stenting, DCS implantation might be a good option because the rates of freedom from ReISR, ReTLR, and MALE were similar.
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.