ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 5-Year Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and the NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) randomized clinical trials showed noninferiority of the ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) compared with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target-lesion failure and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss. We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over a 5-year follow-up. METHODS AND
resultsPatient-level data from the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) were pooled, comparing the outcomes of patients implanted with RES and ZES. The primary end point was the 5-year rate of target-lesion failure. A total of 2221 patients (63.2±10.3 years, 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n=1159) or ZES (n=1062) were included. Most clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 5 years, the primary end point of target-lesion failure was similar between treatment groups (12.2% RES versus 11.3% ZES,
conclusionsIn a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.
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.