ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2017
Polymer-free dual drug-eluting stents evaluated in a porcine model.
Article 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the healing process after percutaneous implantation of a cardiovascular device: a systematic review.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical implications of inflammation in atheroma formation and novel therapies in cardiovascular diseases.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Surface engineering at the nanoscale: A way forward to improve coronary stent efficacy.APL bioengineering · 2021Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough drug-eluting stents have dramatically reduced the rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization, they are associated with stent thrombosis (ST), a catastrophic event likely due to delayed endothelialization and chronic inflammation caused by the polymer and the metal scaffolds. To increase the safety and efficacy of stents, polymer-free dual drug-eluting stents (DDES) have been developed.
methodsA total 160 stents (Bare-metal stents (BMS), polymer-free probucol stents (PrES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and DDES) were randomly implanted in the coronary arteries of 80 pigs. 14, 28, 90 and 191 days after implantation, QCA and OCT evaluations were performed in 20 pigs respectively, and the arteries were harvested for scanning electron microscope (SEM), histomorphology, histopathology analyses and for the relative expression of CD31, CD34 and CD133 on mRNA and protein levels.
resultsAt the 14-day time point, there were significant differences in the strut rate coverage (p = 0.011), with greater coverage in the PrES than in the SES group (53.2%vs. 20.3%, p = 0.002). As well, there were no significant differences in the expression of CD31, CD34 and CD133 between groups in mRNA and protein level.
conclusionsDDES were as safe as BMS and SES, but they did not further improve the endothelialization of the stented coronary arteries in the porcine model.
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.