SynthesisPloS one2018
Mid-term outcomes of the Absorb BVS versus second-generation DES: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Scaffold underexpansion and late lumen loss after bioresorbable scaffold implantation: Insights from ABSORB JAPAN trial.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) were introduced to overcome some of the limitations of drug-eluting stent (DES) for PCI. Data regarding the clinical outcomes of the BVS versus DES beyond 2 years are emerging.
objectiveTo study mid-term outcomes.
methodsWe searched online databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL), several websites, meeting presentations and scientific session abstracts until August 8th, 2017 for studies comparing Absorb BVS with second-generation DES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite/probable device thrombosis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using a random effects model.
resultsTen studies, seven randomized controlled trials and three propensity-matched observational studies, with a total of 7320 patients (BVS n = 4007; DES n = 3313) and a median follow-up duration of 30.5 months, were included. Risk of TLF was increased for BVS-treated patients (OR 1.34 [95% CI: 1.12-1.60], p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). This was also the case for all myocardial infarction (1.58 [95% CI: 1.27-1.96], p<0.001, I2 = 0%), TLR (1.48 [95% CI: 1.19-1.85], p<0.001, I2 = 0%) and definite/probable device thrombosis (of 2.82 (95% CI: 1.86-3.89], p<0.001 and I2 = 40.3%). This did not result in a difference in all-cause mortality (0.78 [95% CI: 0.58-1.04], p = 0.09, I2 = 0%). OR for very late (>1 year) device thrombosis was 6.10 [95% CI: 1.40-26.65], p = 0.02).
conclusionAt mid-term follow-up, BVS was associated with an increased risk of TLF, MI, TLR and definite/probable device thrombosis, but this did not result in an increased risk of all-cause mortality.
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.