Drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) can be treated by restenting using the same DES as previously placed (same stent strategy), versus switching to a stent that elutes a different drug (different stent strategy). To compare the efficacy of these strategies, a meta-analysis of controlled trials and observational studies evaluating patients with DES ISR was performed. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization, and secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, death, and myocardial infarction. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with the generic inverse variance method using a random-effects model. The chi-square test was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Ten studies (1,680 patients) were included. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies for any end point. The different stent strategy was found to reduce the odds of target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization (OR 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.96) and major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96). There was no difference between the 2 strategies in rates of death (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.16) or myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that treatment of DES ISR by restenting with a different DES than previously placed may lead to improved outcomes compared with the use of the same DES. Further large-scale trials are needed to confirm this effect.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2014.
All research outputs
#24,786,738
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#13,676
of 15,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,844
of 371,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#67
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
