ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Ten-year clinical outcomes of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents vs. everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds-insights from the EVERBIO-2 trial.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01711931 (Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Stents), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Stents
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally overlapping technique of bioresorbable scaffolds in a porcine coronary artery model: proof-of-concept study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Collapse of Brain Clearance: Glymphatic-Venous Failure, Aquaporin-4 Breakdown, and AI-Empowered Precision Neurotherapeutics in Intracranial Hypertension.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Biodegradable Stents in the Treatment of Arterial Stenosis.Journal of clinical 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: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) have been developed as a potential solution to mitigate late complications associated with drug-eluting metallic stents (DESs) in percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease. While numerous studies have compared BVSs to DESs, none have assessed clinical outcomes beyond 5 years. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the 10-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with BVSs vs. DESs. Methods: The EverBio-2 trial (Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold) is a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 240 patients allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive BVSs, everolimus-eluting stents, or biolimus-eluting stents (BESs). Clinical follow-up was scheduled for 10 years. Results: Clinical follow-up was completed in 222 patients (93%) at the 10-year mark. The rate of device-oriented composite events (DOCE) was 28% in the DES group and 29% in the BVS group ( Conclusions: Over 10 years, the rates of clinical DOCE and POCE were similar between the BVS and DES groups but individual outcomes of stent thrombosis were higher (3%) in the BVS group compared to the DES group. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (NCT01711931).
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.