Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29369375›Full record

SynthesisClinical cardiology2018

Safety and efficacy of second-generation drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents: An updated meta-analysis and regression of 9 randomized clinical trials.

Ahmed N Mahmoud, Nikhil H Shah, Islam Y Elgendy, Nayan Agarwal, Akram Y Elgendy, Amgad Mentias, Amr F Barakat, Dhruv Mahtta, R David Anderson, Anthony A Bavry

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ahmed N MahmoudDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2459-5195
Nikhil H ShahDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2717-1427
Islam Y ElgendyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9853-7591
Nayan AgarwalDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Akram Y ElgendyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8869-3731
Amgad MentiasDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Amr F BarakatUPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6859-4616
Dhruv MahttaDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.
R David AndersonDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Anthony A BavryDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3545-370X
University of Florida · USUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficacy of second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES; eg, everolimus and zotarolimus) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention was challenged recently by new evidence from large clinical trials. Thus, we aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of second-generation DES compared with BMS. Electronic databases were systematically searched for all RCTs comparing second-generation DES with BMS and reporting clinical outcomes. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE); the primary safety outcome was definite stent thrombosis. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used for estimation of summary risk ratios (RR). A total of 9 trials involving 17 682 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with BMS, second-generation DES were associated with decreased incidence of MACE (RR: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.88), driven by the decreased incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95), target-lesion revascularization (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.42-0.53), definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.78), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.38-0.80). The incidence of all-cause mortality was similar between groups (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79-1.10). Meta-regression showed lower incidences of MI with DES implantation in elderly and diabetic patients (P = 0.026 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Compared with BMS, second-generation DES appear to be associated with a lower incidence of MACE, mainly driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization, MI, and stent thrombosis. However, all-cause mortality appears similar between groups.

Indexed as

Drug-Eluting StentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCoronary Artery DiseaseHumansProsthesis DesignTreatment OutcomeCoronary Artery DiseaseDrug-Eluting StentsPercutaneous Coronary Intervention

Identifiers

PMID29369375
PMCPMC6489746
OpenAlexW2793916325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.