ReviewJournal of the American College of Cardiology2017
Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents.
Review in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 123 citations in OpenAlex.
- Five-Year Outcomes of Bioresorbable Stent Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus conventional drug-eluting stents across time: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Open heart · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Pooled it
- Mid-term outcomes of the Absorb BVS versus second-generation DES: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Learning from Biodegradable Coronary Stents: Future Directions for TPVR Biodegradable Stents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Stent Technology: Do They Reduce Cardiovascular Events?Current atherosclerosis reports · 2022Review
- Polylactide Perspectives in Biomedicine: From Novel Synthesis to the Application Performance.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Long-Term Performance of the Magmaris Drug-Eluting Bioresorbable Metallic Scaffold in All-Comers Patients' Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Biosafety and efficacy evaluation of a biodegradable magnesium-based drug-eluting stent in porcine coronary artery.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comparison of Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Bioresorbable Scaffolds between Patients with and without Diabetes Mellitus.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2021Article
- Recent Advances in Manufacturing Innovative Stents.Pharmaceutics · 2020Review
- Early Aspirin Discontinuation Following Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Standard Versus Ultrasound-Guided Cannulation of the Femoral Artery in Patients Undergoing Invasive Procedures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Comparison between treatment of "established" versus complex "off-label" coronary lesions with AbsorbClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020Article
- Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Serial invasive imaging follow-up of the first clinical experience with the Magmaris magnesium bioresorbable scaffold.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2020Article
- The Current Literature on Bioabsorbable Stents: a Review.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent evidence suggests that bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are associated with an excess of thrombotic complications compared with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES).
objectivesThis study sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved BVS versus metallic EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at longest available follow-up.
methodsThe authors searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and web sources for randomized trials comparing BVS and EES. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion failure and definite or probable stent thrombosis, respectively.
resultsSeven trials were included: in sum, 5,583 patients were randomized to receive either the study BVS (n = 3,261) or the EES (n = 2,322). Median time of follow-up was 2 years (range 2 to 3 years). Compared with metallic EES, risk of target lesion failure (9.6% vs. 7.2%; absolute risk difference: +2.4%; risk ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.59; number needed to harm: 41; p = 0.003; I
conclusionsCompared with metallic EES, the BVS appears to be associated with both lower efficacy and higher thrombotic risk over time. (Bioresorbable vascular scaffold compare to everolimus stents in long term follow up; CRD42017059993).
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.