ReviewJRSM cardiovascular disease
Bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with GRADE assessment.
Review in JRSM cardiovascular disease. 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: Ultrathin bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES), including bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), were developed to mitigate adverse events associated with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of BP-SES versus DP-EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo coronary artery lesions. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2026 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-SES or BRS with DP-EES. Random-effects models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nineteen RCTs involving 18,501 patients were included. No significant differences were observed between BP-SES and DP-EES for target lesion failure (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.74-1.79; I Conclusions: Metallic BP-SES and DP-EES showed similar rates for most clinical endpoints. However, extreme heterogeneity and accrual of only 5.7% of the required information size render the evidence for target lesion failure inconclusive. Higher binary restenosis increased target lesion revascularisation with fully BRS indicate that these platforms are not interchangeable with contemporary metallic stents. Further large, long-term trials are required.
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.