SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Five-Year Outcomes of Bioresorbable Stent Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. 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.
- Cardiovascular stent technologies for coronary and valvular heart disease: the potential of 3D printing for stent fabrication.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Bioresorbable scaffolds advances, challenges, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Stent thrombosis: a contemporary guide to definitions, risk factors, and management.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared to metallic stents for the treatment of coronary heart disease remains controversial. The analysis of clinical outcomes at five years following the initial treatment has yet to be reviewed. This study sought to assess the five-year outcomes in randomized controlled trials of BVS in the treatment of coronary heart disease using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic database search was conducted from their inception to June 30th, 2023 using various Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms including: "Coronary Disease", "Bioresorbable stent", "Randomized controlled trials". Results: After a rigorous selection process, a total of five high-quality articles were finally included in this study. Each trial demonstrated a low risk of bias. After 5 years, bioresorbable stents showed outcomes similar to conventional metal stents in terms of cardiac mortality. However, they were inferior in terms of lesion revascularization rates, in-stent thrombosis rates, target lesion failure, target vessel failure, and myocardial infarction. Conclusions: While bioresorbable stents are comparable to metallic stents in terms of cardiac mortality rates, they exhibit significant drawbacks that warrant clinical consideration.
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.