SynthesisOpen heart2020
Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of ultrathin vs. standard strut drug-eluting stents: insights from a large-scale meta-analysis with extended follow-up.European journal of medical research · 2024Pooled it
- Long-term safety of ultrathin bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2023Pooled it
- Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Revascularization: From Concept to Clinical Maturity.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Drug-Eluting Stent Use in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Clinical outcomes of an ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent in all-comers population: Thailand Orsiro registry.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDetermine whether an ultrathin biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent ('Orsiro'-BP-SES) has clinical benefits over second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES).
methodsWe conducted a prospective systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing Orsiro BP-SES against DP-DES (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019147136). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF): composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation (TLR)) evaluated at the longest available follow-up.
resultsNine trials randomised 11 302 patients to either Orsiro BP-SES or DP-DES. At mean weighted follow-up of 2.8 years, the primary outcome (TLF) occurred in 501 of 6089 (8.2%) participants with BP-SES compared with 495 of 5213 (9.5%) participants with DP-DES. This equates to an absolute risk reduction of 1.3% in TLF in favour of Orsiro BP-SES (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; p=0.03). This was driven by a reduction in TVMI (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.98; p=0.03). There were no significant differences in other clinical endpoints: cardiac death, TLR and stent thrombosis.
conclusionThe Orsiro BP-SES shows promising clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared with contemporary second-generation DES at a short to medium term follow-up. More research is warranted to evaluate performance over a longer follow-up period and in different clinical and lesion subsets.
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.