SynthesisCardiology journal2021
Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in elderly patients: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Cardiology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictors of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of Drug Elution on Infectious Outcomes after Ductal Stenting in Newborns.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Observational
- In-Hospital and 1-Year Outcomes of Octogenarian and Nonagenarian Patients with Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions Treated with Rotational Atherectomy.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Article
- Comparison of Outcomes of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention between Complex and High-Risk Intervention in Indicated Patients (CHIP) versus Non-CHIP.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2023Article
- Complex and high-risk intervention in indicated patients (CHIP) in contemporary clinical practice.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ischemic heart disease. However, there is no age-specific recommendation in elderly patients.
methodsMeta-analysis was performed of 6 randomized studies enrolling 5,042 elderly patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation (DES, n = 2,579; BMS, n = 2,463).
resultsCombined data indicated a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) with use of DES (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.71, p < 0.001). Moreover, use of DES was associated with a significantly lower incidence of myocardial infarction (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.81, p = 0.003) and repeat revascularization (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.62, p < 0.001), was compared to that with the use of BMS. Stent thrombosis and bleeding complication rates were not significantly different between groups. In a subgroup meta-analysis, short duration (1 or 6 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was associated with a significantly lower MACE rate (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.80; p = 0.003) in elderly patients who underwent PCI with everolimuseluting stent implantation, compared with that using long duration DAPT.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis provides clinically relevant evidence that DES rather than BMS should be selected for elderly patients.
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.