Key result
Greater stent number is linked to ~3-fold higher in-stent restenosis risk after PCI.
Why the study?
Findings across studies regarding the association of stent length and number with in-stent restenosis risk after PCI remain inconsistent.
Do stent length and number increase the risk of in-stent restenosis in CAD patients after PCI?
Meta-Analysis (n=6,585)
Do stent length and number increase the risk of in-stent restenosis in CAD patients after PCI?
This meta-analysis confirms that greater stent length and a higher number of stents are associated with an increased risk of in-stent restenosis following PCI.
Stent length and number associate with ISR after PCI; leaves open whether minimization strategies improve outcomes pending higher-quality trials.
Background: The association of stent length and number with the risk of in-stent restenosis (ISR) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) has been widely reported, yet findings remain inconsistent across studies. To clarify this relationship, we conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies evaluating the impact of stent length and number on ISR risk after PCI in CAD patients. Methods: Case-control studies addressing stent length, stent number, and ISR after PCI in CAD patients were systematically searched in electronic databases including VIP, Wanfang, CNKI, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception until June 2025. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used to assess study quality. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. All analyses were performed with Review Manager version 5.4. Results: < 0.00001] were significant risk factors for ISR after PCI in CAD patients. Conclusion: This meta-analysis supports the conclusion that stent length and number are associated with an increased risk of ISR after PCI in CAD patients. However, given the limited number and moderate quality of the included studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution and validated by further high-quality research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease (n=6,585). Stent number vs. Fewer stents was evaluated on In-stent restenosis (ISR) (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.97-4.59, p=<0.00001). Greater stent number (OR 3.01) and longer stent length (OR 1.05) were significantly associated with an increased risk of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: