SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2016
Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Efficacy and safety of nicorandil on perioperative myocardial injury in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the PENMIPCI trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2018Trial
- Safety and Efficacy of an Innovative Everolimus-Coated Balloon in a Swine Coronary Artery Model.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Mass Spectrometry Imaging of Biomaterials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Association study of matrix metalloproteinase 3 5A/6A polymorphism with in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions in a Han Chinese population.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEverolimus -eluting stent (EES) is common used in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Our purpose is to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus -eluting stent (EES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronaryinterventions (PCI) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and relevant websites ( https://scholar-google-com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/ ) for articles to compare outcomes between everolimus-eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent without language or date restriction. RCTs that compared the use of everolimus -eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent in PCI were included. Variables relating to patient, study characteristics, and clinical endpoints were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software.
resultsWe identified 6 published studies (from three randomized trials) more on everolimus-eluting stent (n = 3352) than paclitaxel-eluting (n = 1639), with follow-up duration ranging from 3, 4 and 5 years. Three-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent compared to paclitaxel-eluting were as following: the everolimus-eluting stent significantly reduced all-cause death (relative risk [RR]:0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46. to 0.82), MACE (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.77), MI (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.86), TLR (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.88), ID-TLR (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.92) and ST (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.90). There was no difference in TVR between the everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10); Four-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting compared to paclitaxel-eluting: the everolimus-eluting significantly reduced MACE (RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.98) and ID-TLR (RR: 0.47; 95 % CI: 0.23 to 0.97). There was no difference in MI (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.46), TLR (RR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.04) and ST ((RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.39). Five-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent compared to paclitaxel-eluting: There was no difference in ID-TLR (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.02) and ST (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.80).
conclusionsIn the present meta-analysis, everolimus-eluting appeared to be safe and clinically effective in patients undergoing PCI in comparison to PES in 3-year clinical outcomes; there was similar no difference in reduction of ST between EES and PES in long-term(≥ 4 years) clinical follow-ups. Everolimus-eluting is more safety than paclitaxel-eluting in long-term clinical follow-ups, whether these effects can be applied to different patient subgroups warrants further investigation.
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.