ArticleBMJ open2017
Drug-eluting stents in clinical routine: a 1-year follow-up analysis based on German health insurance administrative data from 2008 to 2014.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of big data from health insurance for assessment of cardiovascular outcomes.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Review
- Epidemiology and One-Year Follow-Up of Neonates with CDH-Data from Health Insurance Claims in Germany.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in the largest population of statutory health insurance members in Germany, including newly developed bio-resorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs), and to evaluate 1-year complication rates of DES as compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) in this cohort.
designRoutine data analysis of statutory health insurance claims data from the years 2008 to 2014.
settingThe German healthcare insurance Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse covers approximately 30% of the German population and is the largest nationwide provider of statutory healthcare insurance in Germany. PARTICIPANTS AND
interventionsWe included all patients with a claims record for a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either DES or BMS and additionally, from 2013, BVS. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were excluded.
main outcome measuremajor adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular event (MACCE, defined as mortality, AMI, stroke and transient ischaemic attack), bypass surgery, PCI and coronary angiography) at 1 year after the intervention.
resultsA total of 243 581 PCI cases were included (DES excluding BVS: 143 765; BVS: 1440; BMS: 98 376). The 1-year MACCE rate was 7.42% in the DES subgroup excluding BVS and 11.29% in the BMS subgroup. The adjusted OR for MACCE was 0.72 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.75) in patients with DES excluding BVS as compared with patients with BMS. In the BVS group, the proportion of 1-year MACCE was 5.0%.
conclusionThe analyses demonstrate a lower MACCE rate for PCI with DES. BVSs are used in clinical routine in selected cases and seem to provide a high degree of safety, but data are still sparse.
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.