SynthesisCardiology journal2022
Efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medium-to-long term outcomes of bioresorbable scaffold treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome.World journal of cardiology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were considered to be beneficial for coronary bifurcation lesions regarding the avoidance of lateral branch opening incarceration after complete absorption. However, data is limited in this setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the short (6-month) and medium-term (1-year) outcomes of BRS in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane library databases were searched to find the studies of BRS implantation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. The effective outcome was target lesion revascularization. The safety outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and cardiac death.
resultsA total of 1204 patients involved in 12 studies were included. The pooled estimate rate of target lesion revascularization as efficacy outcome was highly consistent between 6-month and 1-year follow-up, which was 4.74% (95% CI 2.36-9.54%, I² = 41.5%, p = 0.14) and 4.37% (95% CI 3.05-5.69%, I² = 4.6%, P = 0.39). The pooled estimated rate of major adverse cardiovascular events as safety outcome was 5.50% and 7.31% for both 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The pooled estimated rate of target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and cardiac death at 1-year follow-up was 5.92%, 2.52%, 1.69%, and 0.42%.
conclusionsThe application of BRS for coronary bifurcation lesions is acceptable in efficacy outcome, but the high rate of scaffold thrombosis remains of concern (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD42019140341).
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.