Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038105›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025

Interwoven Nitinol Stent Versus Laser-Cut-Type Nitinol Stent for Long Femoropopliteal Occlusive Disease: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

Alexander A Gostev, Vladimir B Starodubtsev, Olesia S Osipova, Alexey V Cheban, Shoraan B Saaya, Pavel V Ignatenko, Yann Gouëffic, Andrei A Karpenko

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Alexander A GostevMeshalkin National Medical Research Center, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630055. dr.gostev@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7806-7868
Vladimir B StarodubtsevMeshalkin National Medical Research Center, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630055.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4913-614X
Olesia S OsipovaMeshalkin National Medical Research Center, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630055.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7418-3298
Alexey V ChebanMeshalkin National Medical Research Center, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630055.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6094-4607
Shoraan B SaayaMeshalkin National Medical Research Center, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630055.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6547-6948
Pavel V IgnatenkoMeshalkin National Medical Research Center, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630055.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8695-0848
Yann GouëfficLaboratoire de Physiopathologie de La Résorption Osseuse, Inserm-UN UMR-957, Nantes, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9246-1503
Andrei A KarpenkoMeshalkin National Medical Research Center, 15 Rechkunovskaya St., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630055.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6101-3313

Funding

Russian Science Foundation 23-75-10047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere are still limited data to determine the efficacy of interwoven nitinol stent (INS) compared with laser-cut nitinol stent (CNS) for the endovascular treatment of long femoropopliteal lesions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short- and mid-term results of the effectiveness of CNS and INS in the revascularization of long femoropopliteal occlusions. We performed analyses of the primary and secondary outcome measures for subgroups of patients with below-the-knee and "above-the-knee" lesions. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective propensity matched analysis was conducted on symptomatic patients (Rutherford category 3-6) with long occlusions of the femoropopliteal segment (> 15 cm) who underwent stenting with either INS or CNS from 2012 to 2020. The primary outcome measure was the primary patency in 2 years. Secondary outcome measures were secondary patency, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events, sustained clinical improvement, and mortality.

resultsAfter propensity score matching, 126 and 125 patients remained in the INS and CNS groups, respectively. There were no cases of major cardiovascular events (MACE) or major limb events in both groups during the perioperative period. There were no significant differences in primary and secondary patency during a 2-year follow-up. There were no stent fractures in the INS group, whereas in the CNS group the stent fractures rate reached 37 (29.6%) patients (p < 0.001). In the "above-the-knee" subgroup, INS and CNS showed comparable primary patency rates. However, the secondary patency rates were 82.0% and 96.9% in INS and CNS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The secondary sustained clinical improvement rates were 79.8% and 93.9% in INS and CNS subgroups, respectively (p < 0.001). In the "below-the-knee subgroup," INS showed higher primary patency rate (INS: 64.9% CNS: 37.1%; p = 0.04). In the CNS group, the fractures rate "below the knee" was statistically significantly higher compared with stents "above the knee" (p = 0.03).

conclusionAfter propensity score matching, INS showed comparable results with CNS for the whole cohort. However, INS seems to achieve better outcomes for femoropopliteal lesion extended to the below-the-knee level.

Indexed as

AlloysArterial Occlusive DiseasesEndovascular ProceduresFemoral ArteryPeripheral Arterial DiseasePopliteal ArteryStentsAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreProsthesis DesignRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAlloysnitinolEndovascular treatmentFemoropopliteal occlusive lesionsInterwoven nitinol stentPeripheral artery diseaseSupera™

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.