MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416450768 · doi:10.1155/joic/8869530

Rotational Atherectomy Combined With Super High‐Pressure Noncompliant Balloon in Severe or Recurrent In‐Stent Restenosis

2025· article· en· W4416450768 on OpenAlexaff
Giacomo Maria Cioffi, Luca Vercelli, Duka Avdijaj, Mehdi Madanchi, Tobias Göldi, Adrian Attinger‐Toller, Federico Moccetti, Mathias Wolfrum, Stefan Toggweiler, Matthias Bossard, Florim Cuculi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interventional Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestenosisMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionClinical endpointRevascularizationBalloonPercutaneousAngioplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In‐stent restenosis (ISR) and recurrent ISR (Re‐ISR) remain significant challenges of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in complex lesions where conventional therapies are less effective. Rotational atherectomy (RA) combined with super high‐pressure noncompliant (NC) balloons represents a potential strategy for addressing severe ISR or Re‐ISR. Objectives and Methods This study investigated the procedural success and safety as well as clinical outcomes of RA combined with super high‐pressure NC balloons in patients with severe or Re‐ISR. Consecutive patients treated for severe or Re‐ISR between January 2020 and September 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at follow‐up, including target vessel myocardial infarction (TV‐MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Periprocedural complications were also recorded. Results Out of 13 treated patients, 6 (46%) patients experienced periprocedural events, including 3 (23%) Type A dissections, 2 (15%) Type B dissections, and 1 (8%) Ellis Grade I perforation. 9 (70%) patients were treated with drug‐coated balloons (DCBs), 1 (8%) of which had crossover to stenting and 2 (15%) had hybrid strategy with DCB and stenting combined. At a median follow‐up of 13 months, 4 (31%) patients had MACE, comprising 1 (8%) TV‐MI by TLR, 2 (15%) clinically driven TLR, and 1 (8%) TVR. Secondary outcomes included 1 (8%) case of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and 1 (8%) COVID‐19–related death. Conclusions RA combined with super high‐pressure NC balloons for the treatment of severe ISR or Re‐ISR is associated with a significant risk of periprocedural complications. However, the midterm outcomes suggest this strategy might be effective in managing severe or Re‐ISR. Trail Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06075602

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interventional CardiologySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207