Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 438

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Incidence and predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in 10 004 patients with surveillance angiography

Cassese, Salvatore, Byrne, Robert A, Tada, Tomohisa, Pinieck, Susanne, Joner, Michael, Ibrahim, Tareq, King, Lamin A, Fusaro, Massimiliano, Laugwitz, Karl-Ludwig, Kastrati, Adnan·2014·Heart

Abstract

Objective: Systematic investigation of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stents (BMS) or first or second generation drug eluting stents (DES) in large scale, broadly inclusive patient populations undergoing follow-up angiography represents a gap in our scientific knowledge. We investigated the incidence of angiographically proven restenosis and its predictors in patients undergoing PCI with stents. Methods: All patients undergoing successful implantation of coronary stents for de novo lesions from 1998 to 2009 and follow-up angiography at 6–8 months at two centres in Munich, Germany were eligible for inclusion. Patients with cardiogenic shock, dialysis dependent renal insufficiency or previous cardiac transplantation were excluded. Data were prospectively collected. The incidence of restenosis, defined as diameter stenosis ≥50% in the in-segment area at follow-up angiography, and its predictors were evaluated. Results: A total of 12 094 patients met inclusion criteria. Angiographic follow-up was available for 10 004 patients (77.5%) with 15 004 treated lesions. Binary restenosis was detected in 2643 (26.4%) patients. Use of first generation DES versus BMS (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.39) and second generation DES versus first generation DES (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.77) were independent predictors of lower rates of restenosis. At multivariate analysis, smaller vessel size (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.68, for each 0.5 mm decrease), total stented length (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.33, for each 10 mm increase), complex lesion morphology (OR 1.35, 95% 1.21 to 1.51), presence of diabetes mellitus (OR 1.32, 95% 1.19 to 1.46), and history of bypass surgery (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.58) were independently associated with restenosis and were similar across the spectrum of stent devices. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with angiographic surveillance we demonstrated the impact of device development on antirestenotic efficacy, with sequentially improved efficacy from BMS to first generation DES to second generation DES. Predictors of restenosis were small vessel size, increased stented length, complex lesion morphology, diabetes mellitus, and prior bypass surgery.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304933

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 438

Metadata

Authors
Cassese, S., Byrne, R. A., Tada, T., Pinieck, S., Joner, M., Ibrahim, T., King, L. A., Fusaro, M., Laugwitz, K.-L., & Kastrati, A.
Venue
Heart
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-11-22
Volume
100
Issue
2
Pages
153-159
ISSN
  • 1355-6037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-201X
OpenAlex
W2168008786
Cited by
438
References
28
FWCI
23.95
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: Incidence and predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in 10 004 patients with surveillance angiography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304933
The paper
Cassese, S., Byrne, R. A., Tada, T., Pinieck, S., Joner, M., Ibrahim, T., King, L. A., Fusaro, M., Laugwitz, K.-L., & Kastrati, A. (2014). Incidence and predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in 10 004 patients with surveillance angiography. Heart. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304933

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.