ArticleCardiology journal2022
Outcomes of the two generations of bioresorbable scaffolds (Magmaris vs. Absorb) in acute coronary syndrome in routine clinical practice.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2022. 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
- Development and Future Trends of Protective Strategies for Magnesium Alloy Vascular Stents.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- One- and two-year clinical outcomes of treatment with resorbable magnesium scaffolds for coronary artery disease: the prospective, international, multicentre BIOSOLVE-IV registry.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute coronary syndrome (ACS) as a clinical manifestation of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity, as reported worldwide annually. The second generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) is a gold standard in percutaneous interventions in ACS patients however, permanent caging of the vessel with metallic DES has some drawbacks. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) were designed as a temporal vessel-supporting technology allowing for anatomical and functional restoration. Nevertheless, following the initial encouraging reports, numerous concerns about the safety of BRS occurred.
methodsIn this study, a 1-year performance of 193 patients with magnesium BRS - Magmaris (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) was evaluated in comparison to 160 patients with polymer BRS - Absorb (Abbott-Vascular, Chicago, USA) in the non-ST-segment elevation-ACS setting.
resultsThe Magmaris, when compared to Absorb showed a significantly lower rate of primary endpoint (death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis) as well as target lesion failure in 30-day and 1 year follow-up. In the Absorb group, a significantly higher rate of stent thrombosis was observed.
conclusionsData from the present study suggests encouraging safety a profile and more favorable clinical outcomes of Magnesium BRS in comparison to the polymer Absorb - BRS.
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.