Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 515

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Analysis of 1-Year Clinical Outcomes in the SIRIUS Trial: A Randomized Trial of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus a Standard Stent in Patients at High Risk for Coronary Restenosis

Holmes, David R., Leon, Martin B., Moses, Jeffrey W., Popma, Jeffrey J., Cutlip, Donald, Fitzgerald, Peter J., Brown, Charles, Fischell, Tim, Wong, Shing Chiu, Midei, Mark, Snead, David, Kuntz, Richard E.·2004·Circulation

Abstract

Background— This study evaluated a large group of patients enrolled in a double-blind randomized trial of the sirolimus-eluting stent to document whether the initial clinical improvement seen in previous smaller series is maintained out to 12 months and to study the potential treatment effect in patient subsets known to be at increased risk of restenosis. Methods and Results— A total of 1058 patients with de novo native coronary stenosis undergoing clinically indicated percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned to sirolimus-eluting stent (533) or control bare stent (525). Procedural success and in-hospital outcomes were excellent and did not differ between the 2 groups. At 9 months, clinical restenosis, defined as target-lesion revascularization, was 4.1% in the sirolimus limb versus 16.6% in the control limb ( P <0.001). At 12 months, the absolute difference in target-lesion revascularization continued to increase and was 4.9% versus 20% ( P <0.001). There were no differences in death or myocardial infarction rates. In high-risk patient subsets, defined by vessel size, lesion length, and presence of diabetes mellitus, there was a 70% to 80% reduction in clinical restenosis at 1 year. Conclusions— Placement of the sirolimus-eluting stent results in continued clinical improvement at 1 year after initial implantation, with significant reduction in clinical restenosis as defined by target-lesion revascularization. Between 9 and 12 months, the absolute reduction of clinical restenosis continues to increase. Even in high-risk subsets of patients, there is a 70% to 80% relative reduction in clinical restenosis at 12 months with this drug-eluting stent.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.0000112572.57794.22

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 515

Metadata

Authors
Holmes, D. R., Leon, M. B., Moses, J. W., Popma, J. J., Cutlip, D., Fitzgerald, P. J., Brown, C., Fischell, T., Wong, S. C., Midei, M., Snead, D., & Kuntz, R. E.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2004-02-10
Volume
109
Issue
5
Pages
634-640
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2124242147
Cited by
515
References
0
FWCI
72.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Analysis of 1-Year Clinical Outcomes in the SIRIUS Trial: A Randomized Trial of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus a Standard Stent in Patients at High Risk for Coronary Restenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.0000112572.57794.22
The paper
Holmes, D. R., Leon, M. B., Moses, J. W., Popma, J. J., Cutlip, D., Fitzgerald, P. J., Brown, C., Fischell, T., Wong, S. C., Midei, M., Snead, D., & Kuntz, R. E. (2004). Analysis of 1-Year Clinical Outcomes in the SIRIUS Trial: A Randomized Trial of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus a Standard Stent in Patients at High Risk for Coronary Restenosis. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000112572.57794.22

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.