SynthesisMedicine2019
Polymer-free drug-eluting stents versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stents: An updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for instent restenosis of sirolimus-coated stents in coronary intervention for patients with unstable angina.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) have been demonstrated comparable to permanent polymer drug-eluting stents (PP-DES) during long-term follow-up. As a critical component of drug-eluting stents, antiproliferative drugs may be a confounding factor for the results. Thus, we sought to compare the outcomes of these stents during long-term follow-up, especially in consideration of different stent platforms with the same drugs.
methodsA systemic search was performed to identify the related randomized controlled trials comparing PF-DES with PP-DES. Primary outcomes included short (≤1 year) and long-term (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (TLR), short-term in-stent late luminal loss (LLL) and diameter stenosis (DS). Subgroup analyses stratified by the different platforms with the same proliferative drugs were conducted in TLR, LLL, and DS. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using fixed /random effects models
results: A total of 6927 patients extracted from 12 RCTs were enrolled in the meta-analysis. No differences were observed in clinical outcomes of short-term and long-term overall mortality, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis and angiographic outcomes of short-term in-stent LLL and DS between PF-DES and PP-DES for patients with coronary artery lesions. Nevertheless, compared with PP-DES coated with the same proliferative drugs, PF-DES had significantly increased risks of in-stent LLL (SMD, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.72) and DS (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.27-1.07), and long-term TLR (RR, 1.64; 95% CI 1.13-2.39). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.
conclusionsUnder the condition of using same antiproliferative drugs (paclitaxel or sirolimus) in different stent systems, PF-DES are associated with the increased risk of restenosis compared to PP-DES.
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.