ArticleHeliyon2024
Device-related patient outcomes for coronary stents: A MAUDE database analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing prevalence of coronary artery diseases in the US corresponds to the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques that require coronary stents. Although extensive research is available on the perioperative outcomes of the 3 stent options - bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-eluting stents (DES), and bioresorbable drug-eluting stents (BVS), a knowledge gap exists in the longitudinal monitoring of patient outcomes due to device-related causes. Therefore, our study examines the device-related patient outcome and the relative performance for BMS, DES, and BVS. Data on 3 device outcomes (deaths, injuries, and malfunction) for each stent type was obtained from the January 2011 to February 2020 Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. Statistical visualizations and analysis were used to identify trends and significant differences between groups. Of a total of 68,618 adverse event reports, DES, BMS, and BVS each accounted for 88.5 %, 10.2 %, and 1.25 % of the cases, respectively. Device malfunctions were the most reported event (47.2 %), followed by injuries (44.1 %) and deaths (8.66 %). Over time, BMS malfunction rates showed a steady decrease (R = -0.87), while DES malfunction rates increased significantly (R = 0.79). An inversely proportional relationship between DES injuries and malfunctions was observed. The increase in DES malfunctions was 4 times greater than the decrease in BMS malfunctions. Approximately 7 % of reported adverse events were classified as misreported, with most involving DES. These results suggest 2 plausible interpretations: 1) reporting categorization for devices shifted from injuries to malfunction, and 2) stents choice is transitioning from BMS to DES. Our findings also highlight the need to improve reporting accuracy for MAUDE database data.
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.