ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2017
Are acute coronary syndromes an ideal scenario for bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation?
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Influences of Stent Design on In-Stent Restenosis and Major Cardiac Outcomes: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Magmaris bioresorbable magnesium scaffold in acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) represent the latest innovation in the field of interventional cardiology. BRS have recently been introduced in routine clinical practice and their use has progressively extended in everyday clinical practice. The BRS use appears theoretically attractive in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) as they are generally young with long life expectancy, thus possibly benefiting more of the so-called vascular reparative therapy. Furthermore, "culprit" lesions are usually softer and more easily expandable by current BRS compared to stable chronic lesions. However an increased risk of BRS thrombosis has been reported in clinical trials excluding ACS patients. Therefore, concerns have been raised on the safety of BRS implantation in the ACS setting in which the risk of thrombotic recurrences is definitely higher (compared to stable lesions) independently by the device implanted. Aim of this review is to provide an overview of the available data on the BRS performance in ACS patients.
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.