ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2026
Outcomes of durable versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is among the most common cardiovascular procedures, but stents still pose risks of restenosis or thrombosis. Drug-eluting stents (DES) with polymer coatings have improved long-term outcomes. Aim: This study evaluated whether the latest biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) offer improved safety over durable polymer DES (DP-DES). Methods: Data were collected from a single-centre registry at the Medical University of Vienna, including patients who underwent PCI between 2015 and 2020. Patients were categorized by stent type and PCI indication (All Comer, CCS-PCI, ACS-PCI). The primary endpoint comprised of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. Results: 2118 patients were eligible for further analysis. 1232 patients (58.2%) received a DP-DES. In the all-comer cohort, 5-year MACE rates were 12% for BP-DES vs 14.5% for DP-DES. Multivariate analysis showed no significant difference in MACE for the use of BP-DES (OR 0.941, 95% CI 0.734-1.207, p = 0.631). However, TLR rates were significantly lower in patients treated with BP-DES (3.4% vs 6.8%, OR 0.567, 95% CI 0.372-0.865, p = 0.008), mainly driven by lower rates of TLR within the ACS PCI cohort (1.5% vs 4.9%, OR 0.364, 95% CI 0.158-0.841, p = 0.018). In CCS PCI patients, MACE and TLR rates demonstrated no significant differences. Conclusion: BP-DES and DP-DES show a similar long-term safety profile regarding MACE. BP-DES demonstrate a lower risk of TLR in the all-comer cohort, driven by reduced rates in ACS-PCI patients.
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.