ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025
Comparative safety and efficacy of new-generation single-layer polytetrafluorethylene- versus polyurethane-covered stents in patients with coronary artery perforation for the RECOVER (REsults after percutaneous interventions with COVERed stents) Investigators.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. 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.
- Use of Manually Covered Stent with Tegaderm in Vascular Perforations: Case Series Report.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
- 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New-generation single-layer polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE-) or polyurethane (PU-) covered stent (CS) for the treatment of coronary artery perforation (CAP) during PCI offer high procedural efficacy. To evaluate the comparative long-term safety and efficacy of both devices. This is a multicenter pooled analysis of individual data of patients with CAP undergoing implantation of single-layer PTFE-CS or PU-CS. Procedural endpoint was strategy success defined as successful placement of CS and sealing of perforation without surgical conversion. Clinical endpoints were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (def/prob ST) at 12 months. Seventy patients with CAP underwent implantation of two hundred eight CS, ninety-two PTFE-CS, and one hundred sixteen PU-CS. More than 1 stent was implanted in 13 patients (17.1%) in PTFE-CS group and 19 patients (20.2%) in PU-CS group, P = 0.80. Strategy success was high (96.1% versus 92.5%., P = 0.62). At 12 months, 71 patients (93.2%) in PTFE-CS group versus 79 patients (81%) in the PU-CS were alive, P = 0.05; TVR occurred in 14 patients (28.4%) in PTFE-CS group and 12 patients (17.9%) in PU-CS group, P= 0.54; MI in 1 patient (1.3%) in PTFE-CS group and 1 patients (1.1%) in PU-CS group, P = 0.86. Rates of def/prob ST were comparable 1.3% in PTFE-CS versus 3.1% in PU-CS P = 0.95. A strategy of implantation of a new-generation single-layer PTFE- or PU-CS for the treatment of coronary artery perforation showed high success rates. Both new-generation CS showed favorable and similar clinical safety, in particular with regard to thrombotic events.
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.