ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2022
Coronary Artery Restenosis in Women by History of Preeclampsia.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for severe maternal morbidity in patients with hypertensive disorder of pregnancy: A retrospective study.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Following Coronary Artery Stenting by History of Hypertensive Disorder of Pregnancy.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- STEMI, Revascularization, and Peak Troponin by Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Myocardial Infarction.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Coronary artery restenosis and target lesion revascularisation in women by pregnancy history.Open heart · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background A history of preeclampsia is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease and experimental evidence suggests that a history of preeclampsia also increases the risk of restenosis. However, the extent to which a history of preeclampsia is associated with risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in women is unknown. Methods and Results We included 6065 parous women aged ≤65 years with first percutaneous coronary intervention on 9452 segments 2006 to 2017, linking nationwide data on percutaneous coronary intervention and delivery history in Sweden. Main outcomes were clinical restenosis and target lesion revascularization within 2 years. We accounted for segment-, procedure-, and patient-related potential predictors of restenosis in proportional hazards regression models. Restenosis occurred in 345 segments (3.7%) and target lesion revascularization was performed on 383 patients (6.3%). A history of preeclampsia was neither significantly associated with risk of restenosis (predictor-accounted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.41-1.23]) nor target lesion revascularization (0.74 [95% CI, 0.51-1.07]) compared with a normotensive pregnancy history. When term and preterm preeclampsia were investigated separately, segments in women with a history of term preeclampsia had a lower risk of restenosis (predictor-accounted HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.94]). A history of preeclampsia was not significantly associated with death by any cause within 2 years of the index procedure (predictor-accounted HR 1.06, [95% CI, 0.62-1.80]). Conclusions A history of preeclampsia was not associated with increased risk of restenosis but instead some evidence pointed to a decreased risk. To facilitate future studies and allow for replication, concomitant collection of data on pregnancy complication history and percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes in women is warranted.
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.