ReviewTissue engineering and regenerative medicine2025
Innovations in Vascular Repair from Mechanical Intervention to Regenerative Therapies.
Review in Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Effectiveness of CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy Following Neurovascular Endovascular Procedures: A Prospective Non-Randomized Controlled Study.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
- Beyond mechanical revascularization: thrombo-inflammatory mechanisms and vascular bed-specific design of intracranial stents.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Review
- Cell-Cell or Cell-Biomaterial Interactions for Therapeutic Application.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVascular diseases, including atherosclerosis and thrombosis, are leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, often resulting in vessel stenosis that impairs blood flow and leads to severe clinical outcomes. Traditional mechanical interventions, such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents, provided initial solutions but were limited by restenosis and thrombosis. The advent of drug-eluting stents improved short-term outcomes by inhibiting vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation, however, they faced challenges including delayed reendothelialization and late-stage thrombosis.
methodsThis review highlights the progression from mechanical to biological interventions in treating vascular stenosis and underscores the need for integrated approaches that combine mechanical precision with regenerative therapies.
resultsTo address long-term complications, bioresorbable stents were developed to provide temporary scaffolding that gradually dissolves, yet they still encounter challenges with mechanical integrity and optimal degradation rates. Consequently, emerging therapies now focus on biological approaches, such as gene therapy, extracellular vesicle treatments, and cell therapies, that aim to promote vascular repair at the cellular level. These strategies offer the potential for true vascular regeneration by enhancing endothelialization, modulating immune responses, and stimulating angiogenesis.
conclusionIntegrating mechanical precision with regenerative biological therapies offers a promising future for treating vascular stenosis. A comprehensive approach combining these modalities could achieve sustainable vascular health.
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.