Observational studyClinical cardiology2017
Predictors and variability of drug-eluting vs bare-metal stent selection in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PRISM study.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2017. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Racial Implicit Bias and Communication Among Physicians in a Simulated Environment.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Black lives matter … in the cath lab, too! A proposal for the interventional cardiology community to counteract bias and racism.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022Article
- Coronary Stent Healing in Cancer Patients-An Optical Coherence Tomography Perspective.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Predictors and variability of drug-eluting vs bare-metal stent selection in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the PRISM study.Clinical cardiology · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce risk of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but require dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for a longer term than bare-metal stents (BMS). Few studies have examined clinical predictors of DES vs BMS, and variability in provider selection between DES and BMS in clinical practice has not been well described. These insights can inform our understanding of current practice and may identify opportunities to improve decision-making stent selection decinsion-making. In a multicenter registry, 3295 consecutive patients underwent PCI by 158 interventional cardiologists across 10 US sites. Eighty percent of patients with treated with DES. Using hierarchical regression, diabetes mellitus, multivessel disease, health insurance, and white race were independently associated with greater DES use, whereas increasing age, history of hypertension, anticipated surgery, use of warfarin, lower hemoglobin, prior history of bleeding, and treatment of right coronary and left circumflex artery lesions as compared with PCI of left anterior descending artery were associated with lower likelihood of receiving DES. Adjusted rates of DES use across providers varied from 52.3% to 94.6%, and adjusted median odds ratio for DES selection was 1.69. DES selection appeared to reflect physicians' attempts to balance benefits of DES against risks of prolonged DAPT. Nevertheless, marked residual variability in DES selection across providers persisted after adjusting for predictors of restenosis, bleeding, and other factors. Further studies are needed to better understand drivers of this variability and identify the impact of patient and provider preferences on stent selection at the time of PCI.
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.