MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410601419 · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.039482

Safety and Efficacy of Cobalt Chromium Everolimus‐Eluting Stents for Treatment of In‐Stent Restenosis: An ILUMIEN IV Substudy

2025· article· en· W4410601419 on OpenAlexaff
Ziad A. Ali, Ulf Landmesser, Akiko Maehara, Doosup Shin, Koshiro Sakai, Mitsuaki Matsumura, Richard Shlofmitz, Giuseppe Calligaris, Aziz Maksoud, Youssef S. Abdelwahed, Paolo Canova, Nieves Gonzalo, Fernándo Alfonso, Khady Fall, Bassem Chehab, Robert McGreevy, Robert W. McNutt, Hong Nie, Jin Wang, Jana Buccola, Gregg W. Stone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionTarget lesionRestenosisStentLesionHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionCardiologyEverolimusInternal medicineClinical endpointRadiologyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The optimal management strategy for in‐stent restenosis (ISR) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention with XIENCE cobalt chromium everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) for treatment of ISR. Methods In the ILUMIEN IV (Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Coronary Stent Implantation Compared to Angiography: A Multicenter Randomized Trial in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, the 1‐year outcomes of all randomized patients with a single diffuse or multifocal single‐layer ISR lesion treated with EES were compared with a performance goal. The primary end point was target lesion failure, the composite of cardiac death, target vessel‐myocardial infarction, or ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization. Outcomes in patients with a single EES‐treated ISR and non‐ISR lesion were also compared. Results From May 2018 through December 2020, 247 patients with a single ISR lesion were treated with EES. Target lesion failure at 1 year occurred in 18 patients (7.4% [upper 1‐sided 97.5% CI, 11.5%]), which was lower than the predefined performance goal of 20% ( P <0.001). Compared with non‐ISR lesions treated with EES (n=2021), the postpercutaneous coronary intervention minimal stent area by optical coherence tomography was smaller in treated ISR lesions (5.0±1.8 mm 2 versus 5.6±1.9 mm 2 ; P <0.001), but minimum stent expansion was similar (78.8±18.0% versus 79.0±16.9%; P =0.87), as was 1‐year target lesion failure (7.4% versus 4.7%; hazard ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.95–2.61]; P =0.07). Conclusions XIENCE EES was safe and effective for treatment of single‐layer ISR. Compared with non‐ISR lesions, ISR lesions treated with EES had a smaller postpercutaneous coronary intervention minimal stent area although stent expansion and 1‐year target lesion failure rates were not different. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ; Unique identifier: NCT03507777.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→