ReviewCureus2023
Evolving Coronary Stent Technologies - A Glimpse Into the Future.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of first-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in calcified coronary lesions: A meta-analysis.Narra J · 2025Pooled it
- UV-cure hydrogels for cardiac regeneration: a comprehensive review.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Review
- Bioinspired Coronary Stents: A Technological Perspective on Exosome-Mimetic Nanoengineering and Mini-Review of Existing Platforms.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Evolutionary trends and innovations in cardiovascular intervention.Frontiers in medical technology · 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
13 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most widely accepted forms of treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD) is the implementation of stents into the vessel. This area of research is constantly evolving, ranging from bare-metal stents through drug-eluting stents and, more recently, approaching bioresorbable stents and polymer-free stents. This article reviews the evolution of all these devices and emphasizes how they might be further evolved to provide an optimal coronary stent and overcome unsolved challenges in stent development. We thoroughly evaluated a number of published studies in order to advance coronary stent technologies. Additionally, we looked for various literature that highlighted the inadequacies of the coronary stents that are currently available and how they might be modified to create the optimum coronary stent. Coronary stents have significantly improved clinical outcomes in interventional cardiology, but there are still a number of drawbacks, including an persisted risk of thrombosis due to endothelial injury and in-stent restenosis. Gene eluting stents (GES) and customized coronary stents with self-reporting stent sensors are appealing alternatives to existing stent approaches. Considering the adequacy of these gene eluting stents (GES), customized coronary stents produced by novel 4D printing technologies and integrated self-reporting stent sensors should be assumed for anticipating future advancements to optimal coronary stent devices; however, more interventional evidence is required to determine the future prospects of these stent innovations.
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.