ArticleClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Predictive Value Analysis of in-Stent Restenosis Within Three Years in Older Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: A Two-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prognostic value of red cell distribution width in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and bioinformatic study on clinical, paraclinical, and genetic factors predisposing to stent restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Risk investigation of in-stent restenosis after initial implantation of intracoronary drug-eluting stent in patients with coronary heart disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to investigate prognostic factors of in-stent restenosis (ISR) within 3 years in older acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and establish a clinical model for predicting ISR. We retrospectively collected 215 older ACS patients who followed coronary angiography (CAG) after DES implantation, divided into ISR group and non in-stent restenosis (non-ISR) group according to the results of reviewed CAG. Logistic regression analysis was performed to screen independent predictors related to ISR and build the clinical predictive model, which clinical application was assessed by decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve (CIC). Kaplan-Meier survival curves for ISR by independent predictors. In multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the red cell distribution width (RDW) was higher in ISR group compared with non-ISR (odds ratio (OR) = 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-2.08, p < 0.01). Instead, a negative correlation was observed between minimum stent diameter and ISR (OR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.09-0.86, p = 0.03). A novel nomogram composed of these significant features presented a concordance index (C-index) of 0.710, DCA and CIC suggested that the predictive nomogram had clinical utility. Schoenfeld residuals showed the model RDW ≥ 12.6% with minimum stent diameter <3 mm was consistent with the proportional risk assumption. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for ISR showed statistical significance. Higher levels of RDW and lower minimum stent diameter were associated with incidence of ISR within 3 years in older ACS patients after DES implantation.
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.