Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38673650›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Current Management of In-Stent Restenosis.

Daniele Giacoppo, Placido Maria Mazzone, Davide Capodanno

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparison of Different PCI Strategies for Coronary DES In-stent Restenosis: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniele GiacoppoDivision of Cardiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico "Rodolico-San Marco", Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, via Santa Sofia 78, 95124 Catania, Italy.
Placido Maria MazzoneDivision of Cardiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico "Rodolico-San Marco", Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, via Santa Sofia 78, 95124 Catania, Italy.
Davide CapodannoDivision of Cardiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico "Rodolico-San Marco", Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, via Santa Sofia 78, 95124 Catania, Italy.
University of Catania · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the primary cause of target lesion failure following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), resulting in 10-year incidences of target lesion revascularization at a rate of approximately 20%. The treatment of ISR is challenging due to its inherent propensity for recurrence and varying susceptibility to available strategies, influenced by a complex interplay between clinical and lesion-specific conditions. Given the multiple mechanisms contributing to the development of ISR, proper identification of the underlying substrate, especially by using intravascular imaging, becomes pivotal as it can indicate distinct therapeutic requirements. Among standalone treatments, drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation have been the most effective. The main advantage of a DCB-based approach is the avoidance of an additional metallic layer, which may otherwise enhance neointimal hyperplasia, provide the substratum for developing neoatherosclerosis, and expose the patient to a persistently higher risk of coronary ischemic events. On the other hand, target vessel scaffolding by DES implantation confers relevant mechanical advantages over DCB angioplasty, generally resulting in larger luminal gain, while drug elution from the stent surface ensures the inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia. Nevertheless, repeat stenting with DES also implies an additional permanent metallic layer that may reiterate and promote the mechanisms leading to ISR. Against this background, the selection of either DCB or DES on a patient- and lesion-specific basis as well as the implementation of adjuvant treatments, including cutting/scoring balloons, intravascular lithotripsy, and rotational atherectomy, hold the potential to improve the effectiveness of ISR treatment over time. In this review, we comprehensively assessed the available evidence from randomized trials to define contemporary interventional treatment of ISR and provide insights for future directions.

Indexed as

drug-coated balloondrug-eluting stentin-stent restenosisintravascular imagingpercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID38673650
PMCPMC11050960
OpenAlexW4394953938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.