Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28639098›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2017

A head to head comparison of XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold versus metallic sirolimus-eluting stent: 180 days follow-up in a porcine model.

Li Shen, Yizhe Wu, Lei Ge, Yaojun Zhang, Qibing Wang, Juying Qian, Zhifen Qiu, Junbo Ge

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Cardiovascular imaging 2017 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018
    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.

Li ShenDepartment of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Yizhe WuDepartment of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Lei GeDepartment of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Yaojun ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, Xuzhou Third People's Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China.
Qibing WangDepartment of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Juying QianDepartment of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Zhifen QiuDepartment of Cardiology, Tengnan Hospital of Zaozhuang, Shandong, China.
Junbo GeDepartment of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. ge.junbo2@zs-hospital.sh.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold in porcine model. XINSORB scaffolds and metallic Firebird2™ stents were randomly implanted into minipigs' coronary arteries. Angiography, optical coherent tomography (OCT) and histopathological analyses were performed at post-procedure and 14-, 28-, 90-, 180-day follow-up. Thirty-two minipigs were enrolled. Eight XINSORB scaffolds and 8 Firebird2 stents were examined at each time point. Quantitative coronary angiography showed that in-scaffold late luminal loss (LLL) of XINSORB scaffold was 0.26 ± 0.13, 0.50 ± 0.16, 0.88 ± 0.29 and 0.43 ± 0.24 mm at 14-, 28, 90-, and 180-day follow-up respectively, and the corresponding diameter stenosis (DS) was 7.3 ± 4.7, 12.0 ± 9.5, 22.1 ± 8.0, and 16.0 ± 9.5%. Neither in-scaffold LLL nor DS of XINSORB scaffold was significantly different in comparison with Firebird2 stent. No difference of luminal area, device area, neointimal hyperplasia, and area stenosis was detected between two devices under OCT. Scaffold area of XINSORB remained steady through the observation. Histopathology revealed the similar findings. The greatest late recoil of XINSORB scaffold was about 4.12% at 90-day follow-up, which was comparable to Firebird2 stent. Both devices showed low injury or inflammation of vessel wall. XINSORB scaffold showed early neointimal coverage on struts within 28 days under scanning electron microscopy. XINSORB scaffold suppressed neointimal hyperplasia as effectively as Firebird2 did without obvious late device recoil during the 180 days follow-up. It is feasible to carry out clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of XINSORB scaffold for patients with coronary artery diseases.

Indexed as

Cardiac CatheterizationCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDrug-Eluting StentsMetalsAnimalsCardiovascular AgentsCoronary AngiographyCoronary VesselsHyperplasiaMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningModels, AnimalNeointimaPercutaneous Coronary InterventionProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureSirolimusCardiovascular AgentsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleMetalsSirolimusBioresorbable scaffoldPorcine modelRestenosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.