ArticleHeart and vessels2012
Comparison between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of older patients affected by coronary artery disease: results from a single-center allcomers registry.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrast between innovator drug- and generic drug-induced renal dysfunction on coronary angiography (CONTRAST study).Heart and vessels · 2014Trial
- Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-world clinical practice.Heart and vessels · 2015Article
- Triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the COBIS (COronary BIfurcation Stent) II Registry.Heart and vessels · 2015Observational
- Prognostic implications of optimal medical therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome in octogenarians.Heart and vessels · 2015Observational
- Effect of sarpogrelate treatment on the prognosis after endovascular therapy for critical limb ischemia.Heart and vessels · 2014Article
- Difference in neointimal coverage at chronic stage between bare metal stent and sirolimus-eluting stent evaluated at stent-strut level by optical coherence tomography.Heart and vessels · 2014Article
- Dislodged and mechanically distorted stent stuck within a previously implanted drug-eluting stent.Heart and vessels · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of elderly patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging because this population is complex and greatly expanding. Drug-eluting stents (DES) generally improve the outcome in high-risk cases. We evaluated the clinical impact of different first-generation DES, i.e., sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), in this context. A prospective, nonrandomized, single-center, allcomers registry consecutively enrolling all patients aged ≥75 years eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES was carried out. Only one type of DES was implanted per protocol for each patient. Two groups were identified according to the type of implanted stent, i.e., SES and PES. The primary end point encompassed major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary end point encompassed the rate of definite/probable stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). From June 2004 to May 2008, 151 patients were enrolled. Among them, 112 (74.2%) received SES and 39 (25.8%) received PES. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar, while few angiographic features (ostial location, stent diameter, proximal reference vessel diameter) showed minor differences. At the median follow-up of 22.6 months, primary and secondary end points did not significantly differ in terms of MACE (SES 12.5% vs PES 20.5%, P = 0.3), death (SES 5.4% vs PES 7.7%, P = 0.7), myocardial infarction (SES 4.5% vs PES 10.3%, P = 0.2), TLR (SES 2.7% vs PES 2.6%, P = 1.0), stent thrombosis (SES 1.8% vs PES 5.1%, P = 0.3), and TVR (SES 1.8% vs PES 0%, P = 0.6). In this real-world population of elderly patients treated by DES-PCI for CAD, the overall efficacy and safety have been excellent in both DES, and the choice between SES and PES did not influence the clinical outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21989862What 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.