Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,033

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization

Open access
Morice, Marie-Claude, Serruys, Patrick W., Sousa, J. Eduardo, Fajadet, Jean, Ban Hayashi, Ernesto, Perin, Marco, Colombo, Antonio, Schuler, G., Barragan, Paul, Guagliumi, Giulio, Molnàr, Ferenc, Falotico, Robert·2002·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The need for repeated treatment of restenosis of a treated vessel remains the main limitation of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Because sirolimus (rapamycin) inhibits the proliferation of lymphocytes and smooth-muscle cells, we compared a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard uncoated stent in patients with angina pectoris. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial to compare the two types of stents for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. The trial included 238 patients at 19 medical centers. The primary end point was in-stent late luminal loss (the difference between the minimal luminal diameter immediately after the procedure and the diameter at six months). Secondary end points included the percentage of in-stent stenosis of the luminal diameter and the rate of restenosis (luminal narrowing of 50 percent or more). We also analyzed a composite clinical end point consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization at 1, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: At six months, the degree of neointimal proliferation, manifested as the mean (+/-SD) late luminal loss, was significantly lower in the sirolimus-stent group (-0.01+/-0.33 mm) than in the standard-stent group (0.80+/-0.53 mm, P<0.001). None of the patients in the sirolimus-stent group, as compared with 26.6 percent of those in the standard-stent group, had restenosis of 50 percent or more of the luminal diameter (P<0.001). There were no episodes of stent thrombosis. During a follow-up period of up to one year, the overall rate of major cardiac events was 5.8 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 28.8 percent in the standard-stent group (P<0.001). The difference was due entirely to a higher rate of revascularization of the target vessel in the standard-stent group. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a standard coronary stent, a sirolimus-eluting stent shows considerable promise for the prevention of neointimal proliferation, restenosis, and associated clinical events.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa012843

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 4,033

Metadata

Authors
Morice, M.-C., Serruys, P. W., Sousa, J. E., Fajadet, J., Ban Hayashi, E., Perin, M., Colombo, A., Schuler, G., Barragan, P., Guagliumi, G., Molnàr, F., & Falotico, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2002-06-06
Volume
346
Issue
23
Pages
1773-1780
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2079818105
Cited by
4,033
References
0
FWCI
333.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa012843
The paper
Morice, M.-C., Serruys, P. W., Sousa, J. E., Fajadet, J., Ban Hayashi, E., Perin, M., Colombo, A., Schuler, G., Barragan, P., Guagliumi, G., Molnàr, F., & Falotico, R. (2002). A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa012843

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.