Trial reportScientific reports2019
An abluminal biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing coronary revascularization: 3-year clinical outcomes of a randomized non-inferiority trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of bias attributable to composite outcome in clinical trials published in 2019-2020: a systematic review.Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with GRADE assessment.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Cordimax stent has proved non-inferior to the Cypher Select durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent for the primary endpoint of angiographic in-stent late luminal loss and in-stent mean diameter stenosis at 9 months. The trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of the Cordimax stent with the Xience V stent in patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This randomized, multicenter trial enrolled 3697 patients treated with Cordimax stent (2460 patients) and Xience V stent (1237 patients). The primary efficacy endpoint was a target-lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year and the primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years. 3399 patients (91.9%) completed 3-year follow-up. At 1 year, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 86 (3.5%) patients in the Cordimax group versus 40 (3.2%) patients in the Xience V group (0.3% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -1.0-1.5%, P
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.