ArticleScientific reports2025
Intravascular ultrasound assessment of stent edge restenosis mechanisms and treatment outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Refractory rapidly progressive diffuse in-stent restenosis with left main involvement: a case report.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to elucidate the biological or mechanical causes of stent edge restenosis (SER) via intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). A retrospective assessment was conducted on 126 SER lesions that underwent IVUS prior to revascularization. The primary mechanisms of SER were categorized. (1) neointimal hyperplasia (NIH); (2) neoatherosclerosis; (3) uncovered lesion; (4) stent underexpansion; or (5) a protruding calcified nodule (CN). The predominant biological or mechanical causes of SER were NIH in 42.9% (n = 54) of lesions, neoatherosclerosis in 32.5% (n = 41), uncovered lesion in 14.3% (n = 18), stent underexpansion in 7.9% (n = 10), and protruding CN in 2.4% (n = 3). The 2-year device-oriented clinical endpoints (DoCE) incidence was 7.1% (n = 9). The group with biological causes treated via drug-coated balloons (DCB) exhibited a comparable DoCE rate (9.5%) to those with biological causes treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) and mechanical causes managed with or without restenting (6.0%, HR 2.78, 95% CI: 0.91-9.21; p = 0.161). The majority of the analyzed SERs were attributed to biological causes, including NIH, neoatherosclerosis, and uncovered lesions. The 2-year DoCE rate within patients receiving DCB for mechanically or biologically induced SER was similar to that observed in patients receiving new DES.
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.