ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2024
Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Revascularization: From Concept to Clinical Maturity.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne million individuals in the USA die from acute myocardial infarction (MI), which currently affects 3 million people globally. The available data about the early and late outcomes of both biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents exhibit inconsistency. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with DP-DES.
methodsPubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were used to find out studies comparing BP-DES to DP-DES. All the analyses used the random-effects model.
resultsA total of 18 studies were incorporated in this meta-analysis that involved 28,874 patients, out of which 11,997 received the BP Stent, and the rest of 16,578 received the DP stent. Thorough analyses revealed that the risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in the BP-DES group (5.4% vs 2.7%) (RR 1.22, p 0.02) for two years or less than two-year follow-up. For studies with more than two years of follow-up, all-cause death was 9.07% (599/6603) in BP-DES and 9.47% (531/5602) in the DP-DES group but failed to achieve statistically significant levels (RR 0.97, p 0.58).
conclusionsThe study revealed no clinically significant (P value was > 0.05) differences in all-cause death, cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), late stent thrombosis, device-oriented composite endpoint/target lesion failure (DOCE/TLF), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), target vessel infarction (TVI) between BP-DES and DP-DES for more than two years of follow-up. Additionally, all-cause death was only outcomes which found to have a statistically significant difference for less than two years of follow-up, while remaining were statistically non-significant.
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.