ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2014
Second- versus first-generation drug-eluting stents for diabetic patients: a meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Polymer-free versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2019Review
- Comparison of First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in an All-Comer Population of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (from Katowice-Zabrze Registry).Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2015Article
- Clinical outcomes of second- versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe issue of whether various drug-eluting stents (DES) provide similar benefit in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease remains unclear. The purpose of the study is to assess the clinical utility of the second-generation and first-generation DES in patients with diabetes mellitus by a meta-analysis. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted. We included randomized trials involving head-to-head comparison of clinical outcomes of second- versus first-generation DES in patients with a diagnosis of diabetes with at least 6-month follow-up data. Summary statistics were calculated using random-effects models.
resultsA total of 10 trials with 4503 patients were available for analysis. The pooled analyses showed that the second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) significantly lowered all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.90; p = 0.01) and the risk of stent thrombosis (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.22-0.95; p = 0.03) compared with the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and the overall first-generation DES, respectively. Moreover, the EES showed a tendency toward reducing the incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction when compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) (RR = 0.58, p = 0.08). In contrast, the second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) were associated with increased rates of stent thrombosis and risk of target lesion revascularization in comparison with the SES (both p < 0.05) or the overall first-generation DES (both p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe second-generation EES are highly effective in reducing the risk of major cardiac events in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease.
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.