SynthesisPloS one2014
Head-to-head comparison of sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of 76 studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent in de novo small coronary vessel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- A comparison of the main outcomes from BP-BES and DP-DES at five years of follow-up: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Pooled it
- Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Internal and emergency medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-coated balloons in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Global cardiology science & practice · 2024Review
- Intervention with selution SLR™ Agent Balloon for Endovascular Latent Limus therapy for failing AV Fistulas (ISABELLA) Trial: Protocol for a pilot clinical study and pre-clinical results.The journal of vascular access · 2023Article
- Five-year major clinical outcomes between first-generation and second-generation drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2018Article
- Drug-eluting balloons with provisional bail-out or adjunctive stenting inCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2018Article
- Drug-Eluting Balloons in the Treatment of Coronary De Novo Lesions: A Comprehensive Review.Cardiology and therapy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relative short-, long- and overall-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, Cypher) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, Taxus) in large head-to-head comparisons still remain to be defined.
methodsWe searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for articles comparing outcomes of interest between SES and PES without language restriction. Short- (≤ 1 year), long- (>1 year), and overall-term (the longest follow-up of each study) outcomes were evaluated. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Other outcomes of interest were target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction, all-cause death, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), restenosis and late lumen loss.
resultsSeventy-six studies including more than 15000 patients in randomized controlled trials and over 70000 patients in adjusted observational studies were included. At overall-term follow-up, SES significantly reduced TLR (relative risk [RR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.76), TVR (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.83), MACE (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72-0.87), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.99), in-segment restenosis (RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38-0.65), and in-segment late lumen loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.24--0.14) in randomized controlled trials compared with PES. In addition, lower rates of death (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.83-1.00), any stent thrombosis (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45-0.86), definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) were found in patients receiving SES in adjusted observational studies. Largely similar results were found at short- and long-term follow-up, and in patients with diabetes, acute myocardial infarction or long lesions.
conclusionsSES significantly reduced the short-, long- and overall-term risk of TLR/TVR, MACE, and restenosis, and overall-term risk of myocardial infarction in randomized controlled trials, as compared with PES. Lower rates of death and stent thrombosis were also observed in observational studies in SES-treated patients.
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.