ArticleCardiology journal2025
Clinical outcomes of intravascular lithotripsy according to the timing of stent failure: Insights from the COIL registry.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCumulative data has highlighted the efficacy of intra-vascular lithotripsy (IVL) in patients with stent failure (SF). However, it remains unclear whether the effectiveness of IVL, and subsequent clinical outcomes, are influenced by the timing of SF. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with SF undergoing IVL according to the age of index stent implantation.
methodsThis is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the COIL registry (coronary intravascular lithotripsy in patients with stent failure), which included patients who underwent IVL treatment for SF, divided according to the timing of SF, i.e., early (≤12 months), mid-term (12-36 months), and late SF (>36 months). Procedural and clinical outcomes up to 12 months following IVL treatment were recorded. The primary endpoint was defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR).
resultsThere were 88 patients included in this sub-study, of whom 40 (45%), 17 (19%), and 31 (35%) had early, mid-term, and late SF, respectively. Final procedural results were better in those with early compared to mid-term or late SF. At one-year follow-up, the incidence of the primary endpoint was associated with the timing of SF (8% vs. 12% vs. 29%, p = 0.042). The difference among the subgroups was driven by TVR (3% vs. 12% vs. 29%, p = 0.005).
conclusionsProcedural and clinical outcomes following IVL treatment for patients with SF were influenced by the timing of index stent implantation. Further studies are needed to better understand the mechanisms behind recurrent SF.
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.