ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
The impact of the 3-year ABSORB II trial results on my clinical practice: an Italian survey.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate how the 3-year results from the "A clinical evaluation to compare the safety, efficacy and performance of ABSORB everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) system against XIENCE everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of subjects with ischemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions" (ABSORB II) trial have influenced clinical practice among Italian interventional cardiologists.
methodsWe performed a survey among 95 interventional cardiologists sending a brief questionnaire by electronic mail. We collected 65 replies and analysed the data.
resultsThe opinion of the operators regarding the two main endpoints of the study ABSORB II was conflicting. However, 66% of the operators considered at least one of the two co-primary endpoints (late lumen loss or vasomotion) unreliable and not reflecting clinical practice. Asking about an explanation for the negative results of the study, we found that the 91% of the operators considered the implantation technique the main limit of the ABSORB II. Furthermore, 74% of the operators affirmed that the results from the study did not decrease the number of scaffold implanted in their cath-lab.
conclusionsAbsorb II trial did not influence clinical practice among Italian interventional cardiologists mainly due to the overall idea that the co-primary endpoints were not adequate to provide a robust evidence on device clinical safety and also because the lack of experience on device implantation may have influenced the outcomes.
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.