Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37252538›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Clinical Outcomes of Polymer-Free Versus Polymer-Coated Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mahima Khatri, Satesh Kumar, Kamran Mahfooz, Fnu Sugandh, Deepak Dembra, Fnu Mehak, Gianeshwaree Alias Rachna Panjwani, Hamza Islam, Rabia Islam, Syed Muhammad Ibn E Ali Jaffari and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Coatings for Cardiovascular Stents-An Up-to-Date Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 12 institutions in 5 countries.

Mahima KhatriMedicine and Surgery, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, PAK.
Satesh KumarMedicine and Surgery, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College, Karachi, PAK.
Kamran MahfoozInternal Medicine, New York Health and Hospital Corporation, Lincoln Medical Center, New York, USA.
Fnu SugandhMedicine, Ghulam Muhammad Mahar Medical College, Sukkur, PAK.
Deepak DembraMedicine, Ghulam Muhammad Mahar Medical College, Sukkur, PAK.
Fnu MehakSurgery, Ghulam Muhammad Mahar Medical College, Sukkur, PAK.
Gianeshwaree Alias Rachna PanjwaniMedicine and Surgery, Ghulam Muhammad Mahar Medical College, Sukkur, PAK.
Hamza IslamResearch, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad, PAK.
Rabia IslamResearch, Faisalabad Medical University, Faisalabad, PAK.
Syed Muhammad Ibn E Ali JaffariMedicine and Surgery, Shalamar Medical and Dental College, Lahore, PAK.
Tirath PatelSurgery, American University of Antigua, St. John, ATG.
Ajay KumarInternal Medicine, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, USA.
Nomesh KumarSurgery, Detroit Medical Center-Wayne State University of Sinai Grace, Michigan, USA.
Giustino VarrassiPain Medicine, Paolo Procacci Foundation, Rome, ITA.
Punjab Medical College · PKSree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation · INAmerican University of Antigua · AGDow University of Health Sciences · PKFondazione Roma · ITLincoln Medical Center · USMaharaja Krishna Chandra Gajapati Medical College and Hospital · INMedStar Union Memorial Hospital · USShaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University · PKShalamar Hospital · PKSinai Grace Hospital · USSukkur IBA University · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug-eluting stents have transformed the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD), and there are two types: polymer-free and polymer-coated stents. Polymer-free stents have a coating that is quickly absorbed by the body, whereas polymer-coated stents have a coating that remains on the stent surface. This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of these two stent types in patients with coronary artery disease. The literature and abstracts from significant databases were reviewed to compare polymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) and polymer-coated drug-eluting stents (PC-DES) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The primary efficacy endpoints of the study were all-cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes. Among the secondary outcomes were incidences of myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, stroke, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). In terms of the primary outcomes, the combined analysis revealed a marginally lower risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk, RR (95% CI) = 0.92 (0.85, 1.00), p = 0.05, I

Indexed as

cadcoronary artery diseasedrug-eluting stentmeta-analysispc-despf-despolymer coatedpolymer-freesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37252538
PMCPMC10224769
OpenAlexW4367173375

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.