Trial reportThe American journal of cardiology2010
Comparison of drug-eluting and bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft lesions (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry).
Trial report in The American journal of cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous coronary intervention strategies and prognosis for graft lesions following coronary artery bypass grafting.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease remains unclear. In particular, there is a paucity of data on long-term outcomes. In this study, 395 patients enrolled in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry who underwent stenting of SVG lesions with BMS (n = 192) from 1999 to 2006 or DES (n = 203) from 2004 to 2006 were analyzed. Patients were followed prospectively for the occurrence of cardiovascular events and death at 3 years. Patients treated with DES were more likely to have diabetes mellitus and other co-morbidities and previous percutaneous coronary intervention. Treated lesions in DES patients were more complex than those in BMS patients. At 3 years of follow-up, the adjusted risk for target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.62, p = 0.91) and death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.04, p = 0.08) was similar in patients treated with DES and those treated with BMS. The combined outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization excluding periprocedural myocardial infarction was also similar (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.09, p = 0.16). In conclusion, this multicenter nonrandomized study of unselected patients showed no benefit of DES in SVG lesions, including no reduction in target vessel revascularization, compared with BMS at 3 years. An adequately powered randomized controlled trial is needed to determine the optimal stent type for SVG percutaneous coronary intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.