ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Predictive Scoring Model for In-Stent Restenosis Risk in Coronary Artery Disease Patients.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND In-stent restenosis (ISR) after coronary stent implantation is a significant clinical challenge in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In this study we identified independent risk factors for ISR and developed a predictive scoring model based on these factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective study of 256 CAD patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 2017 to December 2018. Based on follow-up angiography, patients were classified into ISR and non-ISR groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors, and an ISR scoring model was developed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis assessed predictive performance. RESULTS Compared to the non-ISR group, the ISR group had significantly higher levels of LDL-C, D-dimer, HbA1c, and uric acid (all P<0.01), along with higher rates of post-procedural smoking, poor blood pressure control, and family history of CAD. Logistic regression analysis identified elevated LDL-C (OR: 5.074), D-dimer (OR: 3.381), HbA1c (OR: 5.322), post-procedural smoking (OR: 4.364), and poor blood pressure control (OR: 5.168) as independent risk factors (all P<0.05). LDL-C showed the highest predictive value (AUC: 0.9289). The ISR scoring model achieved an AUC of 0.8643, with 85.8% sensitivity and 73.9% specificity at a cut-off of 3.0 points. CONCLUSIONS Elevated LDL-C, D-dimer, HbA1c, post-procedural smoking, poor blood pressure control, and a family history of CAD were independent risk factors for ISR. The ISR scoring model provides a practical tool for predicting ISR risk and guiding clinical management to improve outcomes in patients undergoing PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.