Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34981305›Full record

SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2022

Comparison of biodegradable and newer generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents with short-term dual antiplatelet therapy: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials comprising of 43,875 patients.

Bryan Chong, Rachel Sze Jen Goh, Gwyneth Kong, Faith Ruo En Sim, Chen Han Ng, Xin Yi Vanessa Teo, Jing Xuan Quek, Oliver Lim, Yip Han Chin, Siew-Pang Chan and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bryan Chong *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Rachel Sze Jen Goh *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Gwyneth Kong *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Faith Ruo En SimYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Chen Han NgYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Xin Yi Vanessa TeoYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Jing Xuan QuekYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Oliver LimYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yip Han ChinYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Siew-Pang ChanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Mark Y ChanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Huay-Cheem TanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Nicholas W S Chew *Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre, National University Health System, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. nicholas_ws_chew@nuhs.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0640-0430
Poay Huan Loh *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
National University of Singapore · SGNational University Health System · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Newer generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) and biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) have similar efficacy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration of > 6 months. However, this difference in outcomes have not been well studied in shorter DAPT regime. This study compares the safety and efficacy profiles of DP-DES and BP-DES based on short-term (1-3 months), intermediate-term (4-6 months) and standard DAPT (6-12 months) durations. A search was conducted on Embase and Medline for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing stent types, and DAPT durations. Primary endpoints include cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, stroke, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major bleeding. Network analysis was conducted to summarize the evidence. A total of 15 RCTs involving 43,875 patients were included. DP-DES was associated with significantly lower major bleeding rates compared to BP-DES (RR 0.44, Crl 0.22-0.83) in short-term DAPT. Among DP-DES patients, short-term DAPT was associated with lower major bleeding risk compared to standard DAPT (RR 0.47, CrI 0.32-0.69). This favorable bleeding profile with short DAPT was not found in BP-DES patients. Cardiac death, MI, definite stent thrombosis, stroke and TVR rates were similar across the various DAPT durations and stent types. Our preliminary findings demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety outcomes between BP-DES and newer generation BP-DES across various DAPT durations. In patients requiring short DAPT, DP-DES had more favourable major bleeding profile compared to BP-DES, without compromising anti-thrombotic efficacy.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseDrug-Eluting StentsMyocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionStrokeThrombosisDeathHemorrhageHumansPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPolymersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomePlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPolymersAnti-platelet therapyBiodegradableDrug-eluting stentsDurable

Identifiers

PMID34981305
OpenAlexW4205286681

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.