SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2017
Long-term outcome of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between stent length and number and the risk of in-stent restenosis in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled 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
- Long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus stent-PCI for unprotected left main disease: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Pooled it
- AI-driven virtual histology with optical coherence tomography for comparing acute and short-trem performance of bioresorbable scaffolds and drug-eluting stents.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Observational
- Stent Thrombosis and Restenosis with Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents: Predictors and Current Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Frequency, Risk Factors, and Outcome of Definite Stent Thrombosis: A Single-Center Experience.Cureus · 2022Article
- Coronary Stent Thrombosis- Predictors and Prevention.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020Review
- Five Years Outcomes and Predictors of Events in a Single-Center Cohort of Patients Treated with Bioresorbable Coronary Vascular Scaffolds.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Hybrid Coronary Percutaneous Treatment with Metallic Stents and Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds: 2-years Results from the GABI-R Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Incidental Finding of Strut Malapposition Is a Predictor of Late and Very Late Thrombosis in Coronary Bioresorbable Scaffolds.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Predictors of stent thrombosis and their implications for clinical practice.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2019Review
- Procedural Predictors for Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Thrombosis: Analysis of the Individual Components of the "PSP" Technique.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Undiscovered pathology of transient scaffolding t1remains a driver of failures in clinical trials.World journal of cardiology · 2018Article
- Bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a step back thinking of the future.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2018Review
- Adverse events with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine percutaneous coronary interventions: "coup de théâtre" or unfinished play?Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome the limitations of standard metallic stents, especially to address late events after percutaneous coronary interventions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BRS, compared with Everolimus-eluting stents (EES), using the data available from randomized trials, with a focus on long-term outcomes.
methodsPublished randomized trials comparing BRS to EES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were searched for within PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases up to April 4th 2017. The summary measure used was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsA total of 5 studies were eligible, including 5219 patients. At 2 years, BRS was associated with higher rates of target lesion failure (9.4% vs 7.2%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; p = 0.008) and device thrombosis (2.3% vs 0.7%; OR = 3.22; 95% CI 1.86 to 5.57; p < 0.0001) compared with EES. The incidence of both early (within 30 days after implantation, 1.1% vs 0.5%, OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.81; p = 0.05) and very-late device thrombosis (>1 year, 0.6% vs 0.1%, OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.82; p = 0.01) was higher with BRS compared with EES.
conclusionsBRS may be associated with worse two-years clinical outcomes compared with EES in patients with coronary artery disease.
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.