ArticleKorean circulation journal2019
Safety and Efficacy of Biodegradable Polymer-biolimus-eluting Stents (BP-BES) Compared with Durable Polymer-everolimus-eluting Stents (DP-EES) in Patients Undergoing Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Durable-polymer versus biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndromes: three-year outcomes of the HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Trial
- Durable polymer versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention: a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Trial
- Clopidogrel monotherapy in patients with and without on-treatment high platelet reactivity: a SMART-CHOICE substudy.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021Trial
- Complex vs. non-complex percutaneous coronary intervention with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: an analysis from the randomized BIOFLOW trials.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2022Article
- Stent Selection in Complex Coronary Interventions: Thinking Complex?Korean circulation journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThere are no data comparing clinical outcomes of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer-everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BP-BES compared with DP-EES in patients undergoing complex PCI.
methodsPatients enrolled in the SMART-DESK registry were stratified into 2 categories based on the complexity of PCI. Complex PCI was defined as having at least one of the following features: unprotected left main lesion, ≥2 lesions treated, total stent length >40 mm, minimal stent diameter ≤2.5 mm, or bifurcation as target lesion. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years of follow-up.
resultsOf 1,999 patients, 1,145 (57.3%) underwent complex PCI: 521 patients were treated with BP-BES and 624 with DP-EES. In propensity-score matching analysis (481 pairs), the risks of TLF (3.8% vs. 5.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.578; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.246-1.359; p=0.209), cardiac death (2.5% vs. 2.5%, adjusted HR, 0.787; 95% CI, 0.244-2.539; p=0.689), TV-MI (0.5% vs. 0.4%, adjusted HR, 1.128; 95% CI, 0.157-8.093; p=0.905), and TLR (1.1% vs. 2.9%, adjusted HR, 0.390; 95% CI, 0.139-1.095; p=0.074) did not differ between 2 stent groups after complex PCI.
conclusionsClinical outcomes of BP-BES were comparable to those of DP-EES at 2 years after complex PCI. Our data suggest that use of BP-BES is acceptable, even for complex PCI.
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.