SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2021
A meta-analysis of everolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Device innovation or systemic risk management?-rethinking priorities in diabetic percutaneous coronary intervention.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- The Relationship Between Serum SFRP5, ApoA-I, HDL3-C Level and In-Stent Restenosis After PCI in Acute Myocardial Infarction and the Combined Predictive Value.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Patient-Related Factors Predicting Stent Thrombosis in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.Journal of clinical 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe performed this meta-analysis to determine which stent among everolimus eluting stents (EES), sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) should be preferred for the treatment of DM patients.
methodsA systematic search of publications about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on diabetic patients received EES, SES or PES was conducted. We evaluated the following indicators: target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), late luminal loss (LLL), stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality.
resultsEES showed obvious advantages over SES for DM patients, as it induced the lowest rate of target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (p = 0.04). In addition, EES induced lower in-segment LLL than PSE and SES and lower in-stent LLL than PES in DM patients (all p < 0.05). Moreover, EES effectively reduced all-cause mortality compared to SES (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.99, p = 0.04) and MI rates compared to PES (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.73, p = 0.0002). Furthermore, EES could reduce the ST rate compared with both SES (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.28-0.98, p = 0.04) and PES (RR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.07-0.51, p = 0.001).
conclusionAmong those three types of stents, EES should be the first recommended stent for DM patients.
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.