ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2026
Impact of dual-pathway inhibitor therapy on outcomes after femoropopliteal in-stent occlusion.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In-stent occlusions (ISO) in femoropopliteal lesions increase the risk of repeat occlusion after revascularization for ISO and worsen limb prognosis. This study investigated the impact of dual-pathway inhibitor therapy (DPIT) on clinical outcomes after femoropopliteal ISO revascularization. We retrospectively analyzed 120 limbs in 113 symptomatic patients who underwent EVT for femoropopliteal ISO between August 2012 and October 2021. After ISO revascularization, antithrombotic therapy was switched to DPIT in 39 limbs, whereas dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was continued in 81 limbs. The primary endpoint was repeat ISO. Safety endpoints were major bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3 or 5 bleeding and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify prognostic factors. To adjust for baseline imbalances, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-weighted Cox model were performed. One-year freedom from repeat ISO was higher with DPIT than with DAPT (74.7 ± 7.9% vs. 49.1 ± 6.3%; p = 0.029). One-year freedom from BARC 3/5 bleeding (97.4% vs. 97.3%; p = 0.99) and ISTH major bleeding (87.8% vs. 90.2%; p = 0.83) were similar between the two groups. In multivariable analysis, DPIT was associated with lower repeat ISO risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; p = 0.027), whereas chronic limb-threatening ischemia (HR 2.42; p = 0.016) and poor below-the-knee runoff (HR 3.38; p = 0.014) increased risk. In the IPTW-weighted Cox model, DPIT remained associated with reduced repeat ISO (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.97; p = 0.043). Switching to DPIT after femoropopliteal ISO revascularization significantly reduced the risk of repeated ISO without increasing major bleeding events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41774428What 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.