2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.06.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Coronary Restenosis Rates in Matched Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
7
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is agreement with clinical restenosis that is characterized by exaggerated neointima formation in patients with diabetes. [47][48][49] In addition, the extent of macrophage content in the neointimal lesions from the WD-fed apoE Ϫ/Ϫ mouse model was close to that found in human restenotic lesions. Moreno et al 50 reported that macrophage-rich areas were ϳ20% in restenotic lesions from patients with restenosis.…”
Section: Wd-fed Apoementioning
confidence: 72%
“…This finding is agreement with clinical restenosis that is characterized by exaggerated neointima formation in patients with diabetes. [47][48][49] In addition, the extent of macrophage content in the neointimal lesions from the WD-fed apoE Ϫ/Ϫ mouse model was close to that found in human restenotic lesions. Moreno et al 50 reported that macrophage-rich areas were ϳ20% in restenotic lesions from patients with restenosis.…”
Section: Wd-fed Apoementioning
confidence: 72%
“…The presence of DM is associated with higher neointimal hyperplasia, restenosis, and unfavorable clinical outcomes in the era of DES (17,18). Recently, several randomized trials and registries showed inconsistent results regarding the superiority of SES over PES in diabetic patients (6 -10).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Although several studies reported that DM was an independent risk factor of clinical outcomes after coronary stenting [7][10], some other studies failed to identify the association in patients after DES implantation [11], [12]. Additionally, several meta-analyses [13], [14] and clinical trials [15], [16] showed inconsistent results which might be caused by 1) uncontrolled or incomplete control for confounding 2) relatively small sample size.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%