ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2014
Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in the real world: 8-year follow-up.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Endothelial-Smooth Muscle Cell Interactions in a Shear-Exposed Intimal Hyperplasia on-a-Dish Model to Evaluate Therapeutic Strategies.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- Twelve-month clinical outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent in coronary artery disease: An experience in real-world Indian patients.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2020Article
- Elastic Fiber Fragmentation Increases Transmural Hydraulic Conductance and Solute Transport in Mouse Arteries.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2019Article
- Degradable Controlled-Release Polymers and Polymeric Nanoparticles: Mechanisms of Controlling Drug Release.Chemical reviews · 2016Review
- Public health policy based on "made-in-Brazil" Science: a challenge for the Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2015Article
- Clinical Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Follow-Up after Treatment and Analyses of Clinical Outcomes.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2015Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug-eluting stents have been used in daily practice since 2002, with the clear advantages of reducing the risk of target vessel revascularization and an impressive reduction in restenosis rate by 50%-70%. However, the occurrence of a late thrombosis can compromise long-term results, particularly if the risks of this event were sustained. In this context, a registry of clinical cases gains special value.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in the real world.
methodsWe report on the clinical findings and 8-year follow-up parameters of all patients that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent from January 2002 to April 2007. Drug-eluting stents were used in accordance with the clinical and interventional cardiologist decision and availability of the stent.
resultsA total of 611 patients were included, and clinical follow-up of up to 8 years was obtained for 96.2% of the patients. Total mortality was 8.7% and nonfatal infarctions occurred in 4.3% of the cases. Target vessel revascularization occurred in 12.4% of the cases, and target lesion revascularization occurred in 8% of the cases. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.1%. There were no new episodes of stent thrombosis after the fifth year of follow-up. Comparative subanalysis showed no outcome differences between the different types of stents used, including Cypher®, Taxus®, and Endeavor®.
conclusionThese findings indicate that drug-eluting stents remain safe and effective at very long-term follow-up. Patients in the "real world" may benefit from drug-eluting stenting with excellent, long-term results.
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.