SynthesisMedicine2020
Mid-term outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds vs second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Stent Selection for Primary Angioplasty and Outcomes in the Era of Potent Antiplatelets. Data from the Multicenter Randomized Prague-18 Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEverolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), which have the characteristics of scaffold absorption and vascular function recovery, are the latest innovation in the treatment of coronary artery disease. This new concept has become a hot topic in the field of interventional cardiology. Data regarding mid-term clinical outcomes of BVS in acute coronary syndromes are currently scarce. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare mid-term outcome data for BVS and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and relevant web sites for studies with a follow-up of ≥ 1 years that studied percutaneous coronary interventions with BVS vs second-generation DES in acute coronary syndromes. A meta-analysis was performed with the software RevMan following the standards of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0.
resultsFive studies, 2 randomized controlled trials, and 3 observational studies, with a total of 1758 patients (BVS n = 917; DES n = 841) and a median follow-up duration of 24 months, were included. BVS, when compared with DES, resulted in higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.12-3.64; P = .02) and stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST/ScT) (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.13-4.89, P = .02). When TLR due to device thrombosis were excluded, the difference in risk estimates between the 2 groups was no longer significant (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.73-3.82, P = .22). The risk for all-cause death (OR = 1.32 95% CI: 0.61-2.88, P = .48), cardiac death (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.58-2.86 P = .52), target vessel myocardial infarction (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 0.86-2.61, P = .15), and target lesion failure (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.76-2.35, P = .31) did not differ between BVS and DES groups.
conclusionAt mid-term follow-up, BVS had a higher risk of TLR and ST/ScT than the second-generation DES in patients with acute coronary syndromes. ST/ScT was the key factor indicating the decreased safety and effectiveness of BVS relative to 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.