SynthesisPloS one2014
Safety and efficacy of biodegradable drug-eluting vs. bare metal stents: a meta-analysis from randomized trials.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coronary Stent Thrombosis- Predictors and Prevention.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020Review
- Real-World Use Of Ultrathin-Strut Biodegradable Polymer-Coated Sirolimus-Eluting Stents In Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: 6-Month Clinical Outcomes.Vascular health and risk management · 2019Observational
- Prevention of stent thrombosis: challenges and solutions.Vascular health and risk management · 2015Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiodegradable polymeric coatings have been proposed as a promising strategy to enhance biocompatibility and improve the delayed healing in the vessel. However, the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) vs. bare metal stents (BMS) are unknown. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of BP-DES vs. BMS. METHODS AND
resultsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials, until December 2013, that compared any of approved BP-DES and BMS. Efficacy endpoints were target-vessel revascularization (TVR), target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and in-stent late loss (ISLL). Safety endpoints were death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis (DST). The meta-analysis included 7 RCTs with 2,409 patients. As compared with BMS, there was a significantly reduced TVR (OR [95% CI] = 0.37 [0.28-0.50]), ISLL (OR [95% CI] = -0.41 [-0.48-0.34]) and TLR (OR [95% CI] = 0.38 [0.27-0.52]) in BP-DES patients. However, there were no difference for safety outcomes between BP-DES and BMS.
conclusionsBP-DES is more effective in reducing ISLL, TVR and TLR, as safe as standard BMS with regard to death, ST and MI. Further large RCTs with long-term follow-up are warranted to better define the relative merits of BP-DES.
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.