ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2026
Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes for in-Stent vs de Novo Chronic Total Occlusions: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic coronary total occlusion (CTO) represents a formidable challenge in interventional cardiology, occurring either within previously implanted stents (in-stent CTO) or in non-stented native vessels (de novo CTO). We aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between patients with in-stent and de novo CTO through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were searched for comparative studies published up to 20 Results: Nineteen studies that compared 73,945 patients with in-stent CTO and 651,961 patients with de novo CTO were included. There was no statistically significant difference in technical success between the two groups (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87, 1.08; I Conclusion: Our results indicate that in-stent CTO-PCI has success rates similar to those of de novo CTO-PCI. There was no difference in short-term adverse outcomes between the two groups; however, patients undergoing in-stent CTO PCI had an increased risk of MACE and MI, mainly driven by the significantly increased need for TVR.
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.