ArticleOpen heart2025
Durable versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in all-comers.
Article in Open heart, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug-eluting stents (DESs) have become the gold standard of coronary angioplasty since their inception in 2002. Biodegradable polymer DESs (BP-DESs) have been postulated to be superior to durable polymer DESs (DP-DESs) due to their more biocompatible polymer. To date, no study has shown the superiority of one type of polymer compared with the other. We aimed to compare outcomes between a broad range of second-generation DP-DES and BP-DES in an all-comer population.
methodsWe analysed data from 2824 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BP-DES or DP-DES in the Cardio-FR database. Of these, 2079 (1286 DP-DES and 793 BP-DES) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and completed a 2-year follow-up: The primary outcome was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, non-fatal target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation.
resultsMean age was 67 years, with 75% male. Despite the DP-DES group exhibiting significantly higher rates of risk factors, such as arterial hypertension (63.1% vs 57.5%, p=0.010), a greater average number of stents implanted per patient (1.72±0.92 vs 1.63±0.84, p=0.040), more acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (55.1% vs 50.2%, p=0.031) and a higher rate of post-dilatation (42.2% vs 35.2%, p<0.001), the rate of acute stent thrombosis (ST) was significantly lower than in the BP-DES group (HR 0.240, 95% CI 0.075 to 0.766; p=0.016). This difference remained significant even after adjusting for covariates using a Cox proportional hazards model and performing a win ratio analysis (4.09, 95% CI 1.28 to 13.09; p=0.018). Despite this increased rate of acute ST, there was no difference in DOCE (12.1% vs 14.5%, OR 1.218, 95% CI 0.926 to 1.600; p=0.158) between the two groups up to 2 years.
conclusionClinical follow-up up to 2 years shows similar outcomes between BP-DES and DP-DES. The rate of acute ST is higher in patients with BP-DES.
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.