Stent Placement to Prevent Restenosis After Angioplasty in Small Coronary Arteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lesions in small-diameter vessels (<3 mm) define a group with distinct clinical and morphological characteristics. There is an inverse relationship between vessel size and angiographic restenosis rate. This study assessed whether stents reduce angiographic restenosis in small coronary arteries compared with standard balloon angioplasty. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 351 symptomatic patients needing dilatation of 1 native coronary vessel between 2.3 and 2.9 mm in size to angioplasty alone (n=182) or stent implantation (n=169). The primary end point was angiographic restenosis at 6 months. Secondary end points included death, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, and target vessel revascularization in hospital and at 6 months. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of major in-hospital complications. There was a trend toward fewer in-hospital events in the stent group (3% versus 7.1% in angioplasty group, P=0.076). Crossovers to stent occurred in 37 patients (20.3%). Repeat angiography at 6-month follow-up was performed in 85.3% of patients. Angiographic restenosis occurred in 28% of the stent group and 32.9% of the angioplasty group (P=0.36). Target vessel revascularization was required in 17.8% versus 20.3% of patients (P=0.54), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stenting and standard coronary angioplasty are associated with equal restenosis rate in small coronary arteries. With a lower in-hospital complication rate, stenting may be a superior strategy in small vessels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".