SynthesisClinical cardiology2014
Clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2014. 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.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) are innovative concepts in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention. We systematically reviewed the latest randomized evidence on the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer DES as compared to durable polymer DES. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database were searched in August 2013 for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer DES. Clinical outcomes of interest were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis. A total of 20 RCTs randomizing 20 021 participants were included, of whom 11 045 were allocated to biodegradable polymer DES and 8976 to durable polymer DES. Treatment of biodegradable polymer DES was not associated with a significant reduction of any of the clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 to 1.10, P = 0.42; cardiovascular mortality, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.19, P = 0.74; MI, OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.26, P = 0.41; TLR, OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.08, P = 0.20; TVR, OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.28, P = 0.67; definite/probable stent thrombosis, OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.07, P = 0.14). Current randomized data indicate that clinical efficacy and safety profiles of biodegradable polymer DES are comparable to those of durable polymer DES. Findings from large-scale studies with rigorous methodology and long follow-up duration are needed.
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.