SynthesisCurrent cardiology reviews2022
Safety and Efficacy of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Current cardiology reviews, 2022. 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.
- Challenges and Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Patient-tailored stent: Are we there yet?Cardiology journal · 2025Review
- Assessing the risk of bias in single-arm trials for systematic reviews: moving towards a more reliable evaluation of clinical evidence.Future healthcare journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoronary bifurcation lesions (CBL) are one fifth of all coronary lesions and they do not have an optimal strategy for stenting yet. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are novel inventions proposed to be the optimal solution. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of BRS in treating CBL by comparing it to dedicated bifurcation stents (DBS).
methodsA systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, searching databases such as ScienceDirect, EMBASE, MEDLINE, NIH, TRIP, PUBMED, and ClinicalTrials. gov. The risk of bias was assessed by MINORS and modified Cowley's criteria. Q statistic was used for heterogeneity testing and a meta-analysis was conducted using the "meta" package in the R software application.
resultsFourteen studies were included with an average follow-up period of twelve months. Almost 80% of the participants were male (p-value= 0.148) and around two-thirds were smokers. Meta-analysis was performed for myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis (ST). These showed statistically nonsignificant differences, with a slight trend favouring BRS except with stent thrombosis.
conclusionThere is a lack of randomised trials on the topic, which may be an area for further research. But the results showed favourable yet statistically insignificant outcomes for BRS except for ST, an issue that can be addressed with technological advancement.
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.