Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21416192›Full record

ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2011

Comparison between on-label versus off-label use of drug-eluting coronary stents in clinical practice: results from the German DES.DE-Registry.

Timm Bauer, Christoph A Nienaber, Ibrahim Akin, Karl-Heinz Kuck, Matthias Hochadel, Jochen Senges, Thomas Fetsch, Ulrich Tebbe, Stefan N Willich, Jürgen Stumpf and 5 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison between treatment of "established" versus complex "off-label" coronary lesions with AbsorbClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Prognosis of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention receiving drug eluting stents.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2013
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Timm BauerDepartment of Cardiology, Medizinische Klinik B, Herzzentrum Ludwigshafen, Bremserstrasse 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Germany. bauer-timm@gmx.de
Christoph A Nienaber
Ibrahim Akin
Karl-Heinz Kuck
Matthias Hochadel
Jochen Senges
Thomas Fetsch
Ulrich Tebbe
Stefan N Willich
Jürgen Stumpf
Georg V Sabin
Sigmund Silber
Gert Richardt
Ralf Zahn
DES.DE Study Group
Heidelberg University · DEElisabeth-Krankenhaus Essen · DEKlinikum Lippe · DEKlinikum Ludwigshafen · DESegeberger Kliniken · DEAsklepios Klinik St. Georg · DEPraxis für Humangenetik · DEUniversity of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational studies from the USA have demonstrated that off-label use of drug-eluting stents (DES) is common. Data on off-label use in Western Europe are limited.

methodsWe analyzed the data of consecutive patients receiving DES prospectively enrolled in the multicenter German DES.DE registry (Deutsches Drug-Eluting Stent Register) between October 2005 and October 2006. Off-label use was defined in the presence of one of the following criteria: ST-elevation myocardial infarction, in-stent stenosis, chronic total occlusion, lesions in a bypass graft, in bifurcation or left main stem, stent length per lesion ≥32 mm, and vessel diameter <2.5 or >3.5 mm.

resultsOverall, 4,295 patients were included in this analysis and divided into two groups: 2,366 (55.1%) received DES for off-label and 1,929 (44.9%) for on-label indications. There were substantial differences in the rates of off-label use at the participating hospitals. Patients with off-label DES more often presented with high-risk features such as acute coronary syndrome, cardiogenic shock, congestive heart failure, and more complex coronary anatomy. Among hospital survivors, the incidence of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction and stroke (MACCE) (9.2 vs. 7.4%, p < 0.05), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (11.3 vs. 9.1%, p < 0.05) was increased in the off-label group at the 1-year follow-up. However, in the multivariate analysis off-label use was not linked with an elevated risk for MACCE (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.18) and TVR (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.42).

conclusionsIn clinical practice, DES was very frequently used off-label. After adjustment for confounding variables, off-label use was not associated with an increase of adverse events.

Indexed as

Off-Label UseAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCohort StudiesCoronary AngiographyDrug-Eluting StentsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRegistriesRisk FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21416192
OpenAlexW2031060449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.