ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2015
Comparison of First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in an All-Comer Population of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (from Katowice-Zabrze Registry).
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardioprotective Effects of Nicorandil on Coronary Heart Disease Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017Trial
- Predictive value of remnant cholesterol for in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation.Medicine · 2026Article
- Diabetes and restenosis.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2022Review
- Complete and incomplete revascularization in non-ST segment myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: long-term outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents.Heart and vessels · 2019Article
- Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes of Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in the Era of Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents.Cardiorenal medicine · 2017Article
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
backgroundThis study compared safety and efficacy of first- and second-generation DES in an unrestricted, real-life population of diabetic patients undergoing PCI. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was a subanalysis of diabetic patients from the all-comer Katowice-Zabrze Registry of patients undergoing PCI with the implantation of either first- (Paclitaxel-, Sirolimus-eluting stents) or second-generation DES (Zotarolimus-, Everolimus-, Biolimus-eluting stents). Efficacy defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stroke) and safety defined as stent thrombosis (ST) were evaluated at 1 year.
resultsFrom the total of 1916 patients, 717 were diabetics. Among them, 257 (36%) were treated with first-generation DES (230 [89%] Paclitaxel-eluting stents, 27 [11%] Sirolimus-eluting stents), 460 with second-generation DES (171 [37%] Zotarolimus-eluting stents, 243 [53%] Everolimus-eluting stents, 46 [10%] Biolimus-eluting stents). Rate of MACCE was equal in both groups (p=0.54). Second-generation DES had a better safety profile than first-generation DES (log-rank for cumulative ST at 1 year p<0.001). First-generation DES was a risk factor for ST (HR 5.75 [1.16-28.47], p=0.03) but not for MACCE (HR 0.89 [0.6-1.32], p=0.57).
conclusionsIn a real-life setting of diabetic patients undergoing PCI, second-generation DES had lower risk of ST and similar MACCE rate compared to first-generation 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.