ArticleOpen heart
Use of bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a meta-analysis of patients with coronary artery disease.
Article in Open heart. 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.
- Long-term clinical results of biodegradable vascular scaffold ABSORB BVS™ using the PSP-technique in patients with acute coronary syndrome.Cardiology journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferences in outcomes between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) systems and drug-eluting metal stents (DES) have not been fully evaluated. We aimed to compare clinical and angiographic outcomes in randomised studies of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), with a secondary analysis performed among registry studies.
methodsA meta-analysis comparing outcomes between BVS and DES in patients with CAD. Overall estimates of treatment effect were calculated with random-effects model and fixed-effects model.
resultsIn 6 randomised trials (3818 patients), BVS increased the risk of subacute stent thrombosis (ST) over and above DES (OR 2.14; CI 1.01 to 4.53; p=0.05), with a trend towards an increase in the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (125 events in those assigned to BVS and 50 to DES; OR 1.36; CI 0.97 to 1.91; p=0.07). The risk of in-device late lumen loss (LLL) was higher with BVS than DES (mean difference 0.08 mm; CI 0.03 to 0.13; p=0.004). There was no difference in the risk of death or target vessel revascularisation (TVR) between the two devices. In 6 registry studies (1845 patients), there was no difference in the risk of death, MI, TVR or subacute ST between the two stents. Final BVS dilation pressures were higher in registry than in randomised studies (18.7±4.6 vs 15.2±3.3 atm; p<0.001).
conclusionsPatients treated with BVS had an increased risk of subacute ST and slightly higher LLL compared with those with DES, but this might be related to inadequate implantation techniques, in particular device underexpansion.
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.