ArticleCardiology and therapy2021
Impact of Coronary Stent Architecture on Clinical Outcomes: Do Minor Changes in Stent Architecture Really Matter?
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Coroflex ISAR 2000 Postmarket Surveillance Non-Interventional Study
Coroflex ISAR 2000 Extended Postmarket Surveillance Non-Interventional Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- In-Hospital and 1-Year Clinical Results from the French Registry Using Polymer-Free Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Stable Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2023Observational
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 at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this study was to compare the accumulated clinical outcomes of two Malaysian all-comers populations, each treated with different polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents (PF-SES) of similar stent design.
methodsThe Malaysian subpopulation of two all-comers observational studies based on the same protocol (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were combined and compared to a Malaysian-only cohort which was treated with a later-generation PF-SES. The PF-SES's used differed only in their bare-metal backbone architecture, with otherwise identical sirolimus coating. The primary endpoint was the accumulated target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 12 months. The rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stent thrombosis (ST) and myocardial infarction (MI) were part of the secondary endpoints.
resultsA total of 643 patients were treated with either the first-generation PF-SES (413 patients) or second-generation PF-SES (230 patients). Patient demographics were similar in terms of age (p = 0.744), male gender (0.987), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.293), hypertension (p = 0.905) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS, 44.8% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.752) between groups. There were no differences between treatment groups in terms of lesion length (20.8 ± 7.3 mm vs. 22.9 ± 7.9, p = 0.111) or vessel diameter (2.87 ± 0.39 vs. 2.93 ± 0.40, p = 0.052) despite numerically smaller diameters in the first-generation PF-SES group. The second-generation PF-SES tended to have more complex lesions as characterized by calcification (10.3% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.022), severe tortuosity (3.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.041) and B2/C lesions (49.2% vs. 62.8%, p < 0.001). The accumulated TLR rates did not differ significantly between the first- and second-generation PF-SES (0.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.891). The accumulated MACE rates were not significantly different (p = 0.561), at 1.5% (6/413) and 2.2% (5/230), respectively.
conclusionsModifications in coronary stent architecture which enhance the radial strength and radiopacity without gross changes in strut thickness and design do not seem to impact clinical outcomes. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214.
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.