ArticleChinese medical journal2018
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt remains undetermined whether second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DESs) outperform first-generation DESs (G1-DESs) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of G1-DES and G2-DES in ACS patients in a high-volume cardiovascular center.
methodsIn 2013, 10,724 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in our institution. We included 4037 patients with ACS who underwent exclusively G1-DES or G2-DES implantation (n = 364 and n = 3673, respectively). We used propensity score matching to minimize the imbalance between the G1-DES and G2-DES groups and followed patients for 2 years. The efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and its components including target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), target vessel revascularization/target lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and cardiac death. The safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U-test, and categorical variables were compared using Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare the event-free survival rates, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess whether stent type was an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints.
resultsAt the 2-year follow-up, the results for MACE and it components, as well as stent thrombosis, were similar for G1-DES and G2-DES (MACE, 5.2% vs. 4.3%, χ
conclusionG1-DES and G2-DES have similar efficacy and safety profiles in ACS patients at the 2-year follow-up.
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.