Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27821401›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2016

Comparison of Drug-Eluting and Bare Metal Stents in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Renjie Lu, Fenglei Tang, Yan Zhang, Xishan Zhu, Shanmei Zhu, Ganlin Wang, Yinfeng Jiang, Zhengda Fan

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cause of Stent Failure in Patients on Hemodialysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020
    Article
  5. One-year clinical outcomes in patients with renal insufficiency after contemporary PCI: data from a multicenter registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Renjie LuDepartment of Pharmacy, The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Fenglei TangDepartment of Pharmacy, The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Yan ZhangDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Xishan ZhuDepartment of Urinary Surgery, The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Shanmei ZhuDepartment of Pharmacy, The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Ganlin WangDepartment of Urinary Surgery, The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Yinfeng JiangDepartment of Urinary Surgery, The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Zhengda FanDepartment of Pharmacy, The Third People's Hospital of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China yyyy20152015@126.com.
Changzhou Third People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare metal stents (BMSs) are both recommended to improve coronary revascularization and to treat coronary artery disease in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, the potential superiority of DESs over BMSs for reducing the incidence of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in CKD patients has not been established, and the results remain controversial. We aimed to systematically assess and quantify the total weight of evidence regarding the use of DESs versus BMSs in CKD patients. METHODS AND

resultsIn this systematic review and conventional meta-analysis, electronic studies published in any language until May 20, 2016, were systematically searched through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing outcomes in CKD patients with DESs versus BMSs and extracted data in a standard form. Pooled odd ratios and 95% CIs were calculated using random- and fixed-effects models. Finally, 38 studies involving 123 396 patients were included. The use of DESs versus BMSs was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (pooled odds ratio 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.88; P<0.001), all-cause mortality (odds ratio 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90; P<0.001), myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. The superiority of DESs over BMSs for improving clinical outcomes was attenuated in randomized controlled trials.

conclusionsThe use of DESs significantly improves the above outcomes in CKD patients. Nevertheless, large-sized randomized controlled trials are necessary to determine the real effect on CKD patients and whether efficacy differs by type of DES.

Indexed as

Drug-Eluting StentsCause of DeathComorbidityCoronary Artery DiseaseHumansMetalsMortalityMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial RevascularizationOdds RatioRenal Insufficiency, ChronicStentsTreatment OutcomeMetalsbare metal stentcardiaccardiac biomarkerschronic kidney diseasecoronary diseasedialysisdrug‐eluting stentoutcomes

Identifiers

PMID27821401
PMCPMC5210359
OpenAlexW2552573101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.