ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Sex Differences in the Clinical Features and Outcomes of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated with Two Generations (Absorb and Magmaris) of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two-Year Outcomes for Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated with Magmaris and Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Large-Vessel Lesions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Magnesium bioresorbable scaffold (Magmaris) versus polymer biodegradable ultrathin drug-eluting stent (Ultimaster) in acute coronary syndrome. Mid-term outcomes (2 years).Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2024Article
- Magnesium Bioresorbable Scaffold (BRS) Magmaris vs Biodegradable Polymer DES Ultimaster in NSTE-ACS Population-12-Month Clinical Outcome.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2022Article
- C-Reactive Protein Level Predicts Cardiovascular Risk in Chinese Young Female Population.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2021Article
- Mid-term safety and efficacy of magnesium bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - magmaris in diabetic population. 2-Years outcome in acute coronary syndrome cohort.Diabetes & vascular disease researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the developments in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), women are still more likely than men to have unfavorable outcomes after PCI performed in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The mechanisms of this phenomena are not fully understood. Potential benefits of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) may be particularly expressed in the female population. Nevertheless, the data available currently are inconsistent and limited. This study evaluated the gender-related differences in the short-term clinical outcomes in ACS patients treated with implantation of two generations of BRS (first generation, Absorb; second generation, Magmaris).
methodsThe study was divided into two arms. To the first one, we qualified 160 patients with ACS treated with PCI who received 210 Absorb scaffolds. The second arm was composed of 193 patients with ACS who underwent PCI with Magmaris implantation.
resultsThere were no significant sex-related differences in primary endpoints (cardiovascular-death, myocardial infarction, in-stent thrombosis) or principal secondary endpoints (of target-lesion failure, scaffold restenosis, death from any reason, other cardiovascular events) in either generation of BRS in a 1-year follow-up.
conclusionsBoth genders tended to have a similar outcome in routine clinical practice following BRS implantation due to ACS. The magnesium bioresorbable scaffold (Magmaris) early outcome seemed to be more favorable in comparison to the Absorb scaffold.
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.