Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,224

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Standard Stents in Patients with Stenosis in a Native Coronary Artery

Open access
Moses, Jeffrey W., Leon, Martin B., Popma, Jeffrey J., Fitzgerald, Peter J., Holmes, David R., O'Shaughnessy, Charles, Caputo, Ronald P., Kereiakes, Dean J., Williams, David O., Teirstein, Paul S., Jaeger, Judith L., Kuntz, Richard E.·2003·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preliminary reports of studies involving simple coronary lesions indicate that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary revascularization. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent in 1058 patients at 53 centers in the United States who had a newly diagnosed lesion in a native coronary artery. The coronary disease in these patients was complex because of the frequent presence of diabetes (in 26 percent of patients), the high percentage of patients with longer lesions (mean, 14.4 mm), and small vessels (mean, 2.80 mm). The primary end point was failure of the target vessel (a composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization of the target vessel) within 270 days. RESULTS: The rate of failure of the target vessel was reduced from 21.0 percent with a standard stent to 8.6 percent with a sirolimus-eluting stent (P<0.001)--a reduction that was driven largely by a decrease in the frequency of the need for revascularization of the target lesion (16.6 percent in the standard-stent group vs. 4.1 percent in the sirolimus-stent group, P<0.001). The frequency of neointimal hyperplasia within the stent was also decreased in the group that received sirolimus-eluting stents, as assessed by both angiography and intravascular ultrasonography. Subgroup analyses revealed a reduction in the rates of angiographic restenosis and target-lesion revascularization in all subgroups examined. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized clinical trial involving patients with complex coronary lesions, the use of a sirolimus-eluting stent had a consistent treatment effect, reducing the rates of restenosis and associated clinical events in all subgroups analyzed.

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/nejmoa035071

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 4,224

Metadata

Authors
Moses, J. W., Leon, M. B., Popma, J. J., Fitzgerald, P. J., Holmes, D. R., O'Shaughnessy, C., Caputo, R. P., Kereiakes, D. J., Williams, D. O., Teirstein, P. S., Jaeger, J. L., & Kuntz, R. E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2003-10-02
Volume
349
Issue
14
Pages
1315-1323
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2083630382
Cited by
4,224
References
0
FWCI
316.51
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: Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Standard Stents in Patients with Stenosis in a Native Coronary Artery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa035071
The paper
Moses, J. W., Leon, M. B., Popma, J. J., Fitzgerald, P. J., Holmes, D. R., O'Shaughnessy, C., Caputo, R. P., Kereiakes, D. J., Williams, D. O., Teirstein, P. S., Jaeger, J. L., & Kuntz, R. E. (2003). Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Standard Stents in Patients with Stenosis in a Native Coronary Artery. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa035071

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.