ArticleThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2020
Long-term follow-up of therapeutic efficacy of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in comparison to everolimus-eluting stent in treatment of chronic total occlusion guided by intracoronary imaging.
Article in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioresorbable Scaffold Use in Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: A Long-Term, Single-Center Follow-Up Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Is There an Advantage of Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents over Second- and Third-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents?Journal of personalized medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe hypothesized that 1st generation everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) stent associated with less complication and less restenosis rate than everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) recanalization guided by intracoronary imaging. Therefore, we aimed to assess the safety and performance of BVS stent in CTO revascularization in comparison to EES guided by intracoronary imaging. Our prospective comparative cross-sectional study was conducted on 60 CTO patients divided into two groups according to type of stent revascularization: group I (EES group): 40 (66.7%) patients and group II (BVS group): 20 (33.3%) patients. All patients were subjected to history taking, electrocardiogram (ECG), echocardiography, laboratory investigation, stress thallium study to assess viability before revascularization. Revascularization of viable CTO lesion guided by intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Then, long-term follow-up over 1 year clinically and by multi-slice CT coronary angiography (MSCT). Our clinical and angiographic endpoints were to detect any clinical or angiographic complications during the follow-up period.
resultsAt 6 months angiographic follow-up, BVS group had not inferior angiographic parameters but without statistically significant difference (p = 0.566). At 12 months follow-up, there was no difference at end points between the two groups (p = 0.476). No differences were found at angiographic or clinical follow-up between BVS and EES.
conclusionThis study shows that 1st generation everolimus-eluting BVS is non-inferior to EES for CTO revascularization. Further studies are needed to clearly state which new smaller footprint BVS, faster reabsorption, magnesium-based less thrombogenicity, and advanced mechanical properties is under development. We cannot dismiss the efficacy and safety of new BVS technology.
trial registrationZU-IRB#2498/3-12-2016 Registered 3 December 2016, email: IRB_123@medicine.zu.edu.eg.
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.