ArticleJournal of interventional cardiology2020
One-Year Clinical Outcome of Inspiron Stent in All-Comers Population (Analysis from 790 Consecutive Patients).
Article in Journal of interventional 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Very Small-Caliber Vessels: Analysis of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent and Other Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Observational
- Real-World Assessment of an Ultrathin Strut, Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Submitted to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (INSTEMI Registry).Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe goal of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Inspiron
methodsIt was a prospective, single-center registry. To represent clinical practice, all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were included in this registry. There were no exclusion criteria. Clinical follow-ups were performed at twelve months. The endpoints were the occurrence of all-cause death, definite stent thrombosis, and new revascularization.
resultsBetween November 2017 and May 2019, 790 patients were included (1067 lesions). The mean age was 60.42 ± 14.94 years, and 74.7% presented with acute coronary syndrome. Diabetes mellitus was present in 43.9% of patients, and previous myocardial infarction and previous percutaneous coronary intervention were present in 17.9% and 11.3%, respectively. Angiographic success was achieved in 99.1%. The incidence of all-cause death was 11.5% (6.2% in-hospital and 5.3% in the follow-up) and definitive stent thrombosis was 0.2%. New revascularization was performed in only 5.8% (target lesion revascularization: 2.2%; progression of disease in another lesion: 3.6%). Based on the multivariate regression analysis, only chronic renal failure was an independent predictor of adverse events (OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.22-8.92).
conclusionThe result of this single-center registry demonstrates the safety and excellent performance of the Inspiron
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.