The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis with a Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Catheter
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis is hampered by a high incidence of recurrent in-stent restenosis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of a paclitaxel-coated balloon in this setting. METHODS: We enrolled 52 patients with in-stent restenosis in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial to compare the effects of a balloon catheter coated with paclitaxel (3 microg per square millimeter of balloon surface area) with those of an uncoated balloon catheter in coronary angioplasty. The primary end point was late luminal loss as seen on angiography. Secondary end points included the rates of restenosis (a binary variable) and major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: Multivessel disease was present in 80% of patients in both groups. Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no significant differences in baseline measures. At 6 months, angiography showed that the mean (+/-SD) in-segment late luminal loss was 0.74+/-0.86 mm in the uncoated-balloon group versus 0.03+/-0.48 mm in the coated-balloon group (P=0.002). A total of 10 of 23 patients (43%) in the uncoated-balloon group had restenosis, as compared with 1 of 22 patients (5%) in the coated-balloon group (P=0.002). At 12 months, the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 31% in the uncoated-balloon group and 4% in the coated-balloon group (P=0.01). This difference was primarily due to the need for target-lesion revascularization in six patients in the uncoated-balloon group (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters significantly reduced the incidence of restenosis. These data suggest that the inhibition of restenosis by local drug delivery may not require stent implantation and sustained drug release at the site of injury. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00106587 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Neumann, F.-J., Sousa-Uva, M., Ahlsson, A., Alfonso, F., Banning, A. P., Benedetto, U., Byrne, R. A., Collet, J.-P., Falk, V., Head, S. J., et al. (2019) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394 · Cited by 7,167
2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Neumann, F.-J., Sousa-Uva, M., Ahlsson, A., Alfonso, F., Banning, A. P., Benedetto, U., Byrne, R. A., Collet, J.-P., Falk, V., Head, S. J., et al. (2019) · EuroIntervention · doi:10.4244/eijy19m01_01 · Cited by 1,259
Scheinert, D., Duda, S., Zeller, T., Krankenberg, H., Ricke, J., Bosiers, M., Tepe, G., Naisbitt, S., & Rosenfield, K. (2014) · JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2013.05.022 · Cited by 398
Metadata
- Authors
- Scheller, B., Hehrlein, C., Bocksch, W., Rutsch, W., Haghi, D., Dietz, U., Böhm, M., & Speck, U.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2006-11-16
- Volume
- 355
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 2113-2124
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2012105182
- Cited by
- 816
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis with a Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Catheter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa061254
- The paper
- Scheller, B., Hehrlein, C., Bocksch, W., Rutsch, W., Haghi, D., Dietz, U., Böhm, M., & Speck, U. (2006). Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis with a Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Catheter. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa061254
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.