The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inhibition of Restenosis in Femoropopliteal Arteries: Paclitaxel-Coated Versus Uncoated Balloon: Femoral Paclitaxel Randomized Pilot Trial
Abstract
Background— The success of percutaneous intervention in peripheral arterial disease is limited by restenosis. The aim of the present pilot study was to evaluate a novel method of local drug delivery. Methods and Results— This randomized multicenter study with blinded reading enrolled 87 patients in Rutherford class 1 to 4 with occlusion or hemodynamically relevant stenosis, restenosis, or in-stent restenosis of femoropopliteal arteries. Treatment was performed by either conventional uncoated or paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters. The primary end point was late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary end points included restenosis rate, ankle brachial index, Rutherford class, target lesion revascularization, and tolerance up to >18 months. Before intervention, there were no significant differences in lesion characteristics such as reference diameter (5.3±1.1 versus 5.2±1.0 mm), degree of stenosis (84±11% versus 84±16%), proportion of restenotic lesions (36% versus 33%), and mean lesion length (5.7 cm [0.8 to 22.6 cm] versus 6.1 cm [0.9 to 19.3 cm]) between treatment groups. The 6-month follow-up angiography performed in 31 of 45 and 34 of 42 patients showed less late lumen loss in the coated balloon group (0.5±1.1 versus 1.0±1.1 mm; P =0.031). The number of target lesion revascularizations was lower in the paclitaxel-coated balloon group than in control subjects (3 of 45 versus 14 of 42 patients; P =0.002). Improvement in Rutherford class was greater in the coated balloon group ( P =0.045), whereas the improvement in ankle brachial index was not different. The difference in target lesion revascularizations between treatment groups was maintained up to >18 months. No adverse events were assessed as related to balloon coating. Conclusions— In this pilot trial, paclitaxel balloon coating caused no obvious adverse events and reduced restenosis in patients undergoing angioplasty of femoropopliteal arteries.
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
Katsanos, K., Spiliopoulos, S., Kitrou, P., Krokidis, M., & Karnabatidis, D. (2018) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.118.011245 · Cited by 1,020
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
Self-citationQuestions asked and answered in pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trials
Shanyinde, M., Pickering, R. M., & Weatherall, M. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-117 · Cited by 229
Metadata
- Authors
- Werk, M., Langner, S., Reinkensmeier, B., Boettcher, H.-F., Tepe, G., Dietz, U., Hosten, N., Hamm, B., Speck, U., & Ricke, J.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2008-09-23
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1358-1365
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2008850799
- Cited by
- 511
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.52
- 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: Inhibition of Restenosis in Femoropopliteal Arteries: Paclitaxel-Coated Versus Uncoated Balloon: Femoral Paclitaxel Randomized Pilot Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.107.735985
- The paper
- Werk, M., Langner, S., Reinkensmeier, B., Boettcher, H.-F., Tepe, G., Dietz, U., Hosten, N., Hamm, B., Speck, U., & Ricke, J. (2008). Inhibition of Restenosis in Femoropopliteal Arteries: Paclitaxel-Coated Versus Uncoated Balloon: Femoral Paclitaxel Randomized Pilot Trial. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.735985
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.