English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

W hen Odysseus attempted to sail unharmed between Scylla and Charybdis, he could not have dreamt to ever be quoted in relation to restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). To be truly successful, balloon dilatation should change the preexistent stenotic lesion to the extent that sufficient luminal widening is achieved and restenosis does not occur. Nevertheless, approximately 30% of patients will develop restenosis despite an initially successful procedure. All clinical attempts to reduce the incidence have failed. The paradox of this apparent dismal outcome is that this may be the good news after all. Inhibition of the "response to injury" may be the bad news. Why so?

The urge to prevent restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Scylla and Charybdis in disguise.