ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2016
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds-time to vanish?
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thrombotic responses to coronary stents, bioresorbable scaffolds and the Kounis hypersensitivity-associated acute thrombotic syndrome.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Review
- Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease.Current cardiology reports · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fully bioabsorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) has been developed to reduce late adverse events after coronary stenting such as device thrombosis. The device consists of polylactic acid, which is gradually absorbed within the first few years after its implantation. The initial experience with the device in low-risk patients presenting with simple lesions was satisfying and generated optimism among interventional cardiologists by promising better patient outcomes. However, the unrestricted use of the device in patients presenting with a higher baseline risk and more complex lesions came at the cost of alarmingly high rates of early device thrombosis. The performance of the device largely depends on an optimal implantation technique, which differs from that employed with metallic drug-eluting stents due to the device's distinct physical propensity. Mid-term outcomes in large-scale randomized clinical trial were disappointing. Although its non-inferiority compared to metallic everolimus-eluting stents was formally met, there was a clear trend towards an increased occurrence of myocardial infarction and device thrombosis during the first year after device implantation. However, the BVS's putative advantages are expected to manifest themselves at long-term, that is 3 to 5 years after the device has been implanted. Evidence pertaining to these long-term outcomes is eagerly awaited.
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.