The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents. DESIGN: Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258,544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: PubMed, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized trials comparing any of the Food and Drug Administration approved durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting, platinum chromium everolimus eluting, zotarolimus eluting-Endeavor, and zotarolimus eluting-Resolute) or biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents, with each other or against bare metal stents. OUTCOMES: Long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Landmark analysis at more than one year was evaluated to assess the potential late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents. RESULTS: From 126 randomized trials and 258,544 patient years of follow-up, for long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization), biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.66, 95% credibility interval 0.57 to 0.78) and zotarolimus eluting stent-Endeavor (0.69, 0.56 to 0.84) but not to newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (for example: 1.03, 0.89 to 1.21 versus cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents). Similarly, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.61, 0.37 to 0.89) but inferior to cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (2.04, 1.27 to 3.35) for long term safety (definite stent thrombosis). In the landmark analysis after one year, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to sirolimus eluting stents for definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.29, 0.10 to 0.82) but were associated with increased mortality compared with cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (1.52, 1.02 to 2.22). Overall, among all stent types, the newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (zotarolimus eluting stent-Resolute, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, and platinum chromium everolimus eluting stents) were the most efficacious (lowest target vessel revascularization rate) stents, and cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents were the safest with significant reductions in definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.35, 0.21 to 0.53), myocardial infarction (0.65, 0.55 to 0.75), and death (0.72, 0.58 to 0.90) compared with bare metal stents. CONCLUSIONS: Biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents are superior to first generation durable polymer drug eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, have the best combination of efficacy and safety. The utility of biodegradable polymer stents in the context of excellent clinical outcomes with newer generation durable polymer stents needs to be proven.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., & Ben Van Den, A. (2020) · International Coaching Psychology Review · doi:10.53841/bpsicpr.2020.15.2.123 · Cited by 5,670
Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions
Cutlip, D. E., Windecker, S., Mehran, R., Boam, A., Cohen, D. J., van Es, G.-A., Gabriel Steg, P., Morel, M.-A., Mauri, L., Vranckx, P., et al. (2007) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.685313 · Cited by 5,497
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
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., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa035071 · Cited by 4,224
A Polymer-Based, Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease
Stone, G. W., Ellis, S. G., Cox, D. A., Hermiller, J., O'Shaughnessy, C., Mann, J. T., Turco, M., Caputo, R., Bergin, P., Greenberg, J., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa032441 · Cited by 2,749
Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health‐Care Evaluation
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Abrams, K. R., & Myles, J. P. (2003) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0470092602 · Cited by 1,673
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence.
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897 · Cited by 1,600
Cited by
Roffi, M., Patrono, C., Collet, J.-P., Mueller, C., Valgimigli, M., Andreotti, F., Bax, J. J., Borger, M. A., Brotons, C., Chew, D. P., et al. (2016) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320 · Cited by 8,261
Gilard, M., Barragan, P., Noryani, A. A. L., Noor, H. A., Majwal, T., Hovasse, T., Castellant, P., Schneeberger, M., Maillard, L., Bressolette, E., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.11.008 · Cited by 360
2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Windecker, S., Kolh, P., Alfonso, F., Collet, J.-P., Cremer, J., Falk, V., Filippatos, G., Hamm, C., Head, S. J., Jüni, P., et al. (2015) · EuroIntervention · doi:10.4244/eijy14m09_01 · Cited by 328
Zhang, X.-L., Zhu, L., Wei, Z.-H., Zhu, Q.-Q., Qiao, J.-Z., Dai, Q., Huang, W., Li, X.-H., Xie, J., Kang, L.-N., et al. (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-0006 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Bangalore, S., Toklu, B., Amoroso, N., Fusaro, M., Kumar, S., Hannan, E. L., Faxon, D. P., & Feit, F.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2013-11-08
- Volume
- 347
- Issue
- nov08 1
- Pages
- f6625-f6625
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2042031779
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 34.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.f6625
- The paper
- Bangalore, S., Toklu, B., Amoroso, N., Fusaro, M., Kumar, S., Hannan, E. L., Faxon, D. P., & Feit, F. (2013). Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6625
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.