ArticleHeart and vessels2016
Comparison of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stent efficacies for treating left main and/or three-vessel disease: a propensity matched study.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Bioactive Polymers for Intervention and Tissue Engineering: The New Frontier for Cardiovascular Therapy.Polymers · 2021Review
- Targeted Delivery of Bioactive Molecules for Vascular Intervention and Tissue Engineering.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Review
- Initial and late efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents for small and non-small coronary lesions from evaluating delayed late loss study.Heart and vessels · 2017Article
- Early endothelialization associated with a biolimus A9 bioresorbable polymer stent in a porcine coronary model.Heart and vessels · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy of second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for the treatment of left main disease (LM) and/or three vessel disease (3VD) remains unclear. We compared 2-year outcomes of second- versus first -generation DES implantation among patients with LM and/or 3VD and to assess the differential of risk by complexity of coronary artery disease using synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) scores. Between April 2007 and December 2012, 341 patients with LM and/or 3VD were treated by percutaneous coronary intervention; 154 with first-generation DES and 137 with second-generation DES. After propensity matching, 101 patients remained in each group. The rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) were compared. TLR and MACE at 2 years were more common in the first- compared with second-generation DES group (TLR 19.8 vs. 8.9 %; p = 0.016, MACE 24.8 vs. 10.9 %; p = 0.008). In patients with low (0-22) and intermediate (23-32) SYNTAX scores, TLR and MACE tended to occur more often with first-generation DES group. In patients with high SYNTAX scores (≧33), TLR and MACE were significantly more common with first-generation DES group (TLR 29.0 vs. 11.1 %; p = 0.035, MACE 35.5 vs. 13.9 %; p = 0.034). Compared with first-generation DES, second-generation DES proved beneficial in reducing risk of TLR and MACE in patients with LM and/or 3VD, particularly among those with high SYNTAX scores (≧33).
Indexed as
Identifiers
26936450What 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.