Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32258361›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2020

Two year efficacy and safety of small versus large ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffolds of ≤18 mm device length: A subgroup analysis of the German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy (GABI-R).

Myron Zaczkiewicz, Bastian Wein, Matthias Graf, Oliver Zimmermann, Johannes Kastner, Jochen Wöhrle, Riemer Thomas, Christian Hamm, Jan Torzewski, GABI-R Study Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02066623 (German-Austrian Register to Evaluate the Short and Long-term Safety and Therapy Outcomes of the ABSORB Everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System in Patients With Coronary Artery Stenosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02066623 completednot on this map

German-Austrian Register to Evaluate the Short and Long-term Safety and Therapy Outcomes of the ABSORB Everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System in Patients With Coronary Artery Stenosis

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorIHF GmbH - Institut für HerzinfarktforschungRan2013 to 2021Enrolled3,330ConditionsCoronary Artery StenosisArmsABSORB Scaffold
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Myron ZaczkiewiczCardiovascular Center Oberallgäu-Kempten, Kempten, Germany.
Bastian WeinCardiovascular Center Oberallgäu-Kempten, Kempten, Germany.
Matthias GrafCardiovascular Center Oberallgäu-Kempten, Kempten, Germany.
Oliver ZimmermannCardiovascular Center Oberallgäu-Kempten, Kempten, Germany.
Johannes KastnerDepartment of Cardiology, University of Vienna Medical School, Vienna, Austria.
Jochen WöhrleDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Riemer ThomasIHF GmbH - Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Christian HammKerckhoff Heart and Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Benekestrasse 2-8, 61231 Bad Nauheim, Germany.
Jan TorzewskiCardiovascular Center Oberallgäu-Kempten, Kempten, Germany.
GABI-R Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold raised safety concerns due to higher rates of scaffold thrombosis (ScT) and adequate scaffold diameter and length for scaffold technology. Smaller scaffold diameter (SScD, 2.5 mm) was an infrequently quoted predictor of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Therefore, we evaluated the impact of SScD compared to large scaffold diameter (LScD, ≥3 mm) of ≤18 mm device length on 2 year outcome in the all-comer real life GABI-R cohort. METHODS AND

resultsWe compared patients with implanted LScD (1341 patients) vs. SScD (444 patients) of ≤18 mm device length. Patients with LScD more often presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (35.8% vs. 20.6%, p < 0.0001) and single-vessel disease (50.6% vs. 36.5% p < 0.0001). After a 24 months follow-up, there was no difference in regard of MACE (9.66% vs. 12.31%, p = 0.14) or definite/probable ST (2.47% vs. 2.82%, p = 0.71). Despite no difference in target lesion revascularisations (TLR) (5.81% vs. 7.71%, p = 0.18), there was a higher need for target vessel revascularisation (TVR) in the SScD-group (11.57% vs. 7.51%, p < 0.05).

conclusionCompared to LScD, SScD of ≤18 mm device length demonstrated comparable safety in regard to MACE and ScT as well as efficacy in regard to TLR. Resorbable scaffold technology should not be restricted to large vessel diameters. CLINICAL

trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02066623.

Indexed as

ACS/NSTE-ACS, STEMIBioresorbable scaffoldsBVS, bioresorbable vascular scaffold(s)DES, drug-eluting-stent(s)IVUS, intravascular ultrasoundLScD, large scaffold diameter (≥ 3 mm)MACE, major adverse cardiac eventsMI, myocardial infarctionNSTEMI, Non– ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionOCT, optical coherence tomographyPCI, percutanous coronary interventionPSP, predilatation, sizing, postdilatationSA, Stable AnginaScT, Scaffold thrombosisSScD, small scaffold diameter (2.5 mm)Stable anginaSTEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionStent thrombosisTLF, target lesion failureTLR, target lesion revascularizationTVF, target vessel failureTVR, target vessel revascularizationUA, Unstable Angina

Identifiers

PMID32258361
PMCPMC7096743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.