Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 902

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Everolimus-Eluting versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease

Open access
Stone, Gregg W., Rizvi, Ali, Newman, William, Mastali, Kourosh, Wang, John C., Caputo, Ronald, Doostzadeh, Julie, Cao, Sherry, Simonton, Charles A., Sudhir, Krishnankutty, Lansky, Alexandra J., Cutlip, Donald E., Kereiakes, Dean J.·2010·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established the superiority of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic findings. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in clinical end points. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3687 patients at 66 U.S. sites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angiography. The primary end point was the 1-year composite rate of target-lesion failure (defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization). RESULTS: Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point of target-lesion failure (4.2% vs. 6.8%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.82; P=0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents were also superior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were noninferior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year composite rate of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.09 for superiority). The 1-year rates of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were also lower with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myocardial infarction; 0.17% vs. 0.85%, P=0.004 for stent thrombosis). Target-lesion failure was consistently reduced with everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups, except in the subgroup of patients with diabetes (6.4% vs. 6.9%, P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year, results that were consistent in all patients except those with diabetes, in whom the results were nonsignificantly different. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307047.)

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/nejmoa0910496

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 902

Metadata

Authors
Stone, G. W., Rizvi, A., Newman, W., Mastali, K., Wang, J. C., Caputo, R., Doostzadeh, J., Cao, S., Simonton, C. A., Sudhir, K., Lansky, A. J., Cutlip, D. E., & Kereiakes, D. J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2010-05-06
Volume
362
Issue
18
Pages
1663-1674
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2009589924
Cited by
902
References
1
FWCI
114.89
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: Everolimus-Eluting versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0910496
The paper
Stone, G. W., Rizvi, A., Newman, W., Mastali, K., Wang, J. C., Caputo, R., Doostzadeh, J., Cao, S., Simonton, C. A., Sudhir, K., Lansky, A. J., Cutlip, D. E., & Kereiakes, D. J. (2010). Everolimus-Eluting versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0910496

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.