SynthesisMedicine2017
Adverse cardiovascular events associated with biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous coronary intervention plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) versus GDMT alone in adults with stable coronary artery disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Biodegradable polymer versus second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2018Article
- Bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with GRADE assessment.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControversies have been observed among network meta-analyses comparing biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). We aimed to compare the adverse cardiovascular events associated with BP-DES and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) using a large number of patients obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsElectronic databases were searched for randomized trials comparing BP-DES with DP-EES. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes observed between 6 months and 3 years were considered as the clinical endpoints in this analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software. All authors had full access to the data, and they have read and agreed to the manuscript as written.
resultsTen trials involving a total number of 13,218 patients (7451 patients treated by BP-DES and 5767 patients treated by DP-EES) were included. No significant difference was observed when analyzing mortality and myocardial infarction between BP-DES and DP-EES with OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87-1.34, P = .47 and OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.28, P = .72 respectively. Target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stroke were also not significantly different with OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92-1.33, P = .28; OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.94-1.33, P = .22; OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99-1.27; P = .07; and OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69-1.84; P = .62 respectively. In addition, total stent thrombosis (ST) was similarly reported between BP-DES and DP-EES with OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59-1.21; P = .37. However, even if BP-DES were associated with a higher rate of definite ST with OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.92-3.08, P = .09 and DP-EES were associated with a higher rate of probable ST with OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38-1.17, P = .16, these results were not statistically significant.
conclusionsBetween 6 months and 3 years, BP-DES were similar in terms of cardiovascular outcomes compared to DP-EES. However, further long-term follow-up research is recommended.
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.