ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Comparison on the efficacy of everolimus-eluting stent and zotarolimus-eluting stents in coronary heart disease between diabetic and non-diabetic patients.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal Trends in the Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Zotarolimus Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus Eluting Stents: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical cardiology · 2024Pooled it
- Long-term (2-5 years) adverse clinical outcomes associated with ZES versus SES, PES and EES: A Meta-Analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Pooled it
- Comparing Stent Thrombosis associated with Zotarolimus Eluting Stents versus Everolimus Eluting Stents at 1 year follow up: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Pooled it
- Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Migration and P70S6K: Key Players in Intimal Hyperplasia Development.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to examine and compare the efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in coronary heart disease in diabetic or non-diabetic patients.
methodsA total of 666 patients needed for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly selected from June 2008 to June 2013 in our hospital and were divided into two groups: (i) coronary heart disease with diabetes group and (ii) non-diabetes group. Patients in each group were further assigned to receive treatment of either EES or ZES. Then we observed the major adverse cardiac events, including mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal cerebrovascular events over the period of 15 months after initial stent implantation.
resultsCompared to the non-diabetic group, more patients in diabetic group had received anti-hypotensive treatment (72% vs. 49%, P < 0.0001) and hypolipemic treatment (80% vs. 67%, P < 0.0001) before the percutaneous coronary intervention. In both diabetic group and non-diabetic group, patients received ZES treatment had a much greater incidence rate of major adverse cardiac events compared to the patients received EES treatment (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, target lesion revascularization rate in the ZES group was also significantly higher than that in the EES group. The data showed big differences between ZES and EES groups with important statistical significance (P < 0.05).
conclusionPatients with coronary heart disease and diabetes have a higher risk of major adverse cardiac events after stent implantation. EES treatment is safer with higher efficacy in our study, being a more effective stent for the patients merged with diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26885005PMC4723850W2276286025What 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.