ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Five-Year Efficacy and Safety of TiNO-Coated Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are performed with titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents (TiNOSs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs). The initial completion of this prospective systematic literature review (SLR) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that TiNOSs are non-inferior to DESs in major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates and present a lower risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) at 1-year follow-up. This iteration of the SLR protocol performs the critical assessment of 5-year follow-up outcomes with clinical validity and generalizability assessments. (2) Methods: The previously described SLR and meta-analysis protocol, per PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and GRADE, was applied to 5-year follow-up outcomes. (3) Results: Three RCTs were eligible, comprising 1620 patients with TiNOS vs. 1123 with DES. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals were MACE 0.82 [0.68, 0.99], MI 0.58 [0.44, 0.78], cardiac death (CD) 0.46 [0.28, 0.76], ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) 1.03 [0.79, 1.33], probable or definite stent thrombosis (ST) 0.32 [0.21, 0.59], and all-cause mortality (TD) 0.84 [0.63, 1.12]. The evidence certainty was high in MACE, CD, MI, and ST, and moderate in TLR and TD. (4) Conclusions: TiNOSs in ACS at 5-year follow-up appear safer than DESs and equally efficacious. The pooled RRs stratified by clinical presentation and stent type will be required to test this meta-analysis's clinical validity and generalize its results to patient populations with varying proportions of clinical presentations and DES options.
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.