ArticleHealth science reports2018
Biodegradable polymer versus second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.
Article in Health science reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes of first-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in calcified coronary lesions: A meta-analysis.Narra J · 2025Pooled it
- Procedural safety and outcome of ultrathin strut stents (<60 μm) in the management of very long coronary artery stenosis (>30 mm) - A retrospective real world study.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2020Article
- Biodegradable polymer versus second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2018Article
- Observational
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
aimsBiodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) were developed in hopes of reducing the risk of stent thrombosis. The comparison of this new stent platform with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) has not been well described. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of BP-DES versus second-generation DP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS AND
resultsElectronic database searches were conducted, from their dates of inception to June 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients with either BP-DES or second-generation DP-DES. Risk estimates were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed a landmark analysis beyond 1 year and sensitivity analyses based on different variables. A total of 24,406 patients from 19 RCTs were included in the present meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between BP-DES and second-generation DP-DES for the risks of definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.12;
conclusionOur findings demonstrate similar safety and efficacy profiles between BP-DES and second-generation BP-DES, with comparable rates of stent thrombosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.