SynthesisMedicine2020
Cardiovascular outcomes associated with Ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus eluting stents following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of published studies.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention with the new generation drug eluting stents (DES) is 1 among the revascularization procedures required to treat patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Since late stent thrombosis and silent myocardial infarction are highly associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), an analysis comparing the newer generation DES in this specific subgroup of patients would be scientifically relevant.In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the cardiovascular outcomes observed with the ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (SES) versus thin, durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (EES) following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with T2DM.
methodsThrough online databases, relevant studies comparing ultrathin bioresorbable polymer SES versus the durable polymer EES were carefully searched. The cardiovascular outcomes were assessed during a follow-up time period of 1 year and more than 1 year (1-5 years) respectively. This meta-analysis was carried out by the latest version of the RevMan software. Following analysis, the results were represented by odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsA total number of 1967 patients with T2DM were included in this analysis. During a 1 year follow-up time period, target lesion failure (TLF) (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.34-1.02; P = .06, target vessel revascularization (TVR) (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.55-1.70; P = .91) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.44-1.87; P = .79) were similarly observed with ultrathin bioresorbable polymer SES versus the thin, durable polymer EES in these patients with T2DM. Other cardiovascular outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac events, all-cause mortality (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.37-1.40; P = .34), cardiac death and stent thrombosis (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.45-1.62; P = .63) were also similarly observed with these 2 types of new stents. During a follow-up time period above 1 year (1-5 years), still no significant difference was observed in TLF, TVR, TLR, major adverse cardiac events, MI, all-cause mortality, cardiac death and stent thrombosis (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.33-1.16; P = .14).
conclusionsThe ultrathin bioresorbable polymer SES were similar to the durable polymer EES in these patients with T2DM. These 2 types of new generation stents were comparable in terms of cardiovascular outcomes. Hence, they might be recommended in patients with T2DM. Upcoming trials should be able to confirm this hypothesis.
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.