Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30344532›Full record

ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2018

Five-year major clinical outcomes between first-generation and second-generation drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.

Yong Hoon Kim, Ae-Young Her, Seung-Woon Rha, Byoung Geol Choi, Se Yeon Choi, Jae Kyeong Byun, Ju Yeol Baek, Woong Gil Choi, Tae Soo Kang, Ji Hoon Ahn and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. 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

19 authors.

Yong Hoon KimDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, South Korea.
Ae-Young HerDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, South Korea.
Seung-Woon RhaCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Byoung Geol ChoiCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Se Yeon ChoiDepartment of Medicine, Korea University Graduate School, Seoul, South Korea.
Jae Kyeong ByunDepartment of Medicine, Korea University Graduate School, Seoul, South Korea.
Ju Yeol BaekCardiovascular Center, Cheong Ju St. Mary hospital, Cheong Ju, Chung Buk, South Korea.
Woong Gil ChoiCardiology Department, Konkuk University Chungju Hospital, Chungju, South Korea.
Tae Soo KangDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, Dankook University Hospital, Cheonan, South Korea.
Ji Hoon AhnDepartment of Cardiology, Soonchunhyang University Gumi Hospital, Gumi, South Korea.
Sang-Ho ParkCardiology Department, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Cheonan, South Korea.
Ahmed MashalyCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Jin Oh NaCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Cheol Ung ChoiCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Hong Euy LimCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Eung Ju KimCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Chang Gyu ParkCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Hong Seog SeoCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Dong Joo OhCardiovascular Center, Korea University, Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere were limited data comparing the major clinical outcomes between first-generation (1G)-drug eluting stents (DES) and second-generation (2G)-DES in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during very long follow-up periods. We thought to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of 2G-DES compared with 1G-DES in AMI patients during 5-year follow-up periods.

methodA total of 1016 eligible AMI patients who underwent PCI with 1G-DES [paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, 1G-zotarolimus-eluting stent (endeavor

resultsTwo propensity score-matched (PSM) groups (232 pairs,

conclusionIn this single-center and all-comers registry, 2G-DES's superiorities for TLR, TVR and total revascularization in AMI patients suggested during 5-year clinical follow-up periods.

Indexed as

Acute myocardial infarctionClinical outcomesDrug-eluting stent

Identifiers

PMID30344532
PMCPMC6188943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.