Observational studyTexas Heart Institute journal2024
Three-Year Clinical Outcomes With the Cilotax Dual Drug-Eluting Stent vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Observational study in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2024. 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.
- The ultrathin-strut everolimus-eluting stent in a real-world population: the Everythin multicenter registry.REC, interventional cardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel/cilostazol-eluting Cilotax stents with those of everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Real-world data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were examined.
methodsA total of 5,472 patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with Cilotax stents (n = 212) or everolimus-eluting stents (n = 5,260). The primary end point was the 3-year rate of target lesion failure. The other end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders by using a logistic regression model; propensity score matching generated 2 well-balanced groups (Cilotax group, n = 180; everolimus-eluting stents group, n = 170; N = 350). After propensity score matching, baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups.
resultsAfter percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with the everolimus-eluting stents group, the Cilotax group more often had major adverse cardiovascular events (24.1% vs 18.5%; P = .042), myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.2%; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (8.0% vs 2.6%; P < .001), target vessel revascularization (11.3% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001) before matching. Even after matching, the Cilotax group had more frequent target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs 2.9%; P = .22) and stent thrombosis (5.6% vs 1.2%; P = .34).
conclusionIn patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the Cilotax stent was associated with higher rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis than were everolimus-eluting stents. Use of the Cilotax dual drugeluting stent should be avoided in the treatment of myocardial infarction.
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.