Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 574

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes With Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Coronary Stents: A Mixed-Treatment Comparison Analysis of 117 762 Patient-Years of Follow-Up From Randomized Trials

Bangalore, Sripal, Kumar, Sunil, Fusaro, Mario, Amoroso, Nicholas, Attubato, Michael J., Feit, Frederick, Bhatt, Deepak L., Slater, James·2012·Circulation

Abstract

Background—: Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been in clinical use for nearly a decade; however, the relative short- and long-term efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well defined. Methods and Results—: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2012, that compared any of the Food and Drug Administration–approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES], everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES], and ZES-Resolute [ZES-R]) with each other or against BMS for de novo coronary lesions, enrolling at least 100 patients and with follow-up of at least 6 months. Short-term (≤1 year) and long-term efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis) outcomes were evaluated and trial-level data pooled by both mixed-treatment comparison and direct comparison analyses. From 76 randomized clinical trials with 117 762 patient-years of follow-up, compared with BMS, each DES reduced long-term target-vessel revascularization (39%–61%), but the magnitude varied by DES type (EES∼SES∼ZES-R>PES∼ZES>BMS), with a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate. There was no increase in the risk of any long-term safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis, with any DES (versus BMS). In addition, there was reduction in myocardial infarction (all DES except PES versus BMS) and stent thrombosis (with EES versus BMS: Rate ratio, 0.51; 95% credibility interval, 0.35–0.73). The safest DES appeared to be EES (>86% probability), with reduction in myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis compared with BMS. Short-term outcomes were similar to long-term outcomes, with SES, ZES-R, and everolimus-eluting stent being the most efficacious and EES being the safest stent. Conclusions—: DES are highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in any safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis. However, among the DES types, there were considerable differences, such that EES, SES, and ZES-R were the most efficacious and EES was the safest 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/circulationaha.112.097014

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 574

Metadata

Authors
Bangalore, S., Kumar, S., Fusaro, M., Amoroso, N., Attubato, M. J., Feit, F., Bhatt, D. L., & Slater, J.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2012-06-12
Volume
125
Issue
23
Pages
2873-2891
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2046209971
Cited by
574
References
5
FWCI
70.05
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: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes With Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Coronary Stents: A Mixed-Treatment Comparison Analysis of 117 762 Patient-Years of Follow-Up From Randomized Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.112.097014
The paper
Bangalore, S., Kumar, S., Fusaro, M., Amoroso, N., Attubato, M. J., Feit, F., Bhatt, D. L., & Slater, J. (2012). Short- and Long-Term Outcomes With Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Coronary Stents: A Mixed-Treatment Comparison Analysis of 117 762 Patient-Years of Follow-Up From Randomized Trials. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.112.097014

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.