ArticleCardiology journal2020
Long-term clinical results of biodegradable vascular scaffold ABSORB BVS™ using the PSP-technique in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of lesion preparation and stent optimisation on lesion-oriented events in PCI with drug-eluting stents: 5-year results from the AIDA trial.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- Factors associated with long-term major adverse cardiac events of coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffold.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2021Observational
- Mid-term safety and efficacy of magnesium bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - magmaris in diabetic population. 2-Years outcome in acute coronary syndrome cohort.Diabetes & vascular disease researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe PSP (predilatation, sizing, post-dilatation)-technique was developed to improve the prognosis of patients after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation. In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) the use of BVS is particularly demanding and carries some potential risk regarding aggressive lesion preparation, proper vessel sizing due to spasm and thrombus inside the artery. The aim herein, was to determine the long-term results of BVS stenting in ACS patients depending on the scaffold implantation technique.
methodsThe present study is a prospective, two-center study, which consisted of 182 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California, USA) implantation for the ACS. All patients were divided into two groups. The first consisted of 52 patients treated with the PSP-technique (PSP group). The second group enrolled 130 patients treated with a non-PSP procedure (non-PSP group).
resultsThe procedure was successful in all patients. The mean observation time was 28.8 ± 16.5 months (median 28.3 months, interquartile range 24.0 [17.0-41.0] months). It was found that target vessel failure (TVF) was consistently reduced in patients using the PSP-technique as compared with the non-PSP group (5.8% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.03). Moreover, PSP-technique was superior to non-PSP-technique concerning major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (3.7% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.02). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the use of PSP technique significantly decreased the risk of target vessel revascularization (odds ratio [OR] 0.11, p = 0.01), TVF (OR 0.28, p = 0.03) and MACE (OR 0.29, p = 0.02).
conclusionsThe PSP-technique for BVS implantation improves long-term results and should also be recommended for newer generations of the bioresorbable scaffold.
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.