Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24211507›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American College of Cardiology2014

Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis.

Tullio Palmerini, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai, Diego Della Riva, Andrea Mariani, Manel Sabaté, Pieter C Smits, Christoph Kaiser, Fabrizio D'Ascenzo, Giacomo Frati, Massimo Mancone and 2 more

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
34.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 307 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention forFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Precision percutaneous coronary intervention.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026
    Review

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Tullio PalmeriniDipartimento Cardiovascolare, Policlinico Sant' Orsola, Bologna, Italy.
Giuseppe Biondi-ZoccaiDepartment of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Diego Della RivaDipartimento Cardiovascolare, Policlinico Sant' Orsola, Bologna, Italy.
Andrea MarianiDipartimento Cardiovascolare, Policlinico Sant' Orsola, Bologna, Italy.
Manel SabatéHospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Pieter C SmitsDepartment of Cardiology, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Christoph KaiserUniversity Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Fabrizio D'AscenzoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Città Della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giacomo FratiDepartment of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy; Department of Angiocardioneurology, IRCCS "Neuromed", Pozzilli (IS), Italy.
Massimo ManconeDepartment of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Philippe GenereuxColumbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York; Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Gregg W StoneColumbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York. Electronic address: gs2184@columbia.edu.
IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola · ITNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USSapienza University of Rome · ITHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESIstituto Neurologico Mediterraneo · ITMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study sought to investigate the relative safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable polymer (BP)-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES) versus durable-polymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by means of a network meta-analysis.

backgroundStudies have suggested that BP-BES might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) and late adverse outcomes compared with first-generation DES. However, the relative safety and efficacy of BP-BES versus newer-generation DES coated with more biocompatible DP have not been investigated in depth.

methodsRandomized controlled trials comparing BP-BES versus currently U.S.-approved DES or BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted.

resultsData from 89 trials including 85,490 patients were analyzed. At 1-year follow-up, BP-BES were associated with lower rates of cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI), MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS and lower rates of TVR than fast-release zotarolimus-eluting stents. The BP-BES had similar rates of cardiac death/MI, MI, and TVR compared with other second-generation DP-DES but higher rates of 1-year ST than cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). The BP-BES were associated with improved late outcomes compared with BMS and paclitaxel-eluting stents, considering the latest follow-up data available, with nonsignificantly different outcomes compared with other DP-DES although higher rates of definite ST compared with CoCr-EES.

conclusionsIn this large-scale network meta-analysis, BP-BES were associated with superior clinical outcomes compared with BMS and first-generation DES and similar rates of cardiac death/MI, MI, and TVR compared with second-generation DP-DES but higher rates of definite ST than CoCr-EES.

Indexed as

Coated Materials, BiocompatibleDrug-Eluting StentsStentsCardiovascular AgentsChromium AlloysCoronary ThrombosisEverolimusHumansMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial RevascularizationPaclitaxelPolymersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSirolimusCardiovascular AgentsChromium AlloysCoated Materials, BiocompatibleEverolimusPaclitaxelPolymersSirolimuszotarolimusbare-metal stent(s)BESbioabsorbable polymersbiolimus-eluting stent(s)BPCIcobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent(s)CoCr-EEScredible intervalDPdrug-eluting stent(s)durable polymersmeta-analysisodds ratioORpaclitaxel-eluting stent(s)PC-ZESPESphosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stent(s)platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent(s)PtCr-EESrandomized controlled trialRCTSESsirolimus-eluting stent(s)STstent thrombosistarget vessel revascularizationsTVR

Identifiers

PMID24211507
OpenAlexW94282034

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.