ArticlePloS one2019
Clinical outcomes of second-generation limus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWhether the cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of second-generation limus-eluting stents (LESs) differ from those of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is still unclear.
methodsWe used the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database to analyse data of 516 patients with AMI and CS diagnosed from January 2007 to December 2011. We used propensity score matching to adjust for the imbalance in covariate baseline values between these two groups. We evaluated clinical outcomes by comparing 197 subjects who used second-generation LESs to 319 matched subjects who used PESs.
resultsThe risk of the primary composite outcomes (i.e., myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation or CV death) was significantly lower in the second-generation LES group than in the PES group [37.3% vs. 51.8%; hazard ratio (HR), 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56-0.95] at the 12-month follow-up. The patients who received second-generation LESs had a lower risk of coronary revascularisation (HR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41-0.93) than those who used PESs. However, the risks of myocardial infarction (HR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.26-1.24), ischemic stroke (HR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.23-2.35), or CV death (HR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.63-1.28) were not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionsAmong patients with CS-complicating AMI, second-generation LES implantation significantly reduced the risk of coronary revascularisation and composite CV events compared to PES implantation at the 12-month 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.