Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Aug 23;8(8):CD012481.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012481.pub2.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

Joshua Feinberg  1 , Emil Eik Nielsen, Janette Greenhalgh, Juliet Hounsome, Naqash J Sethi, Sanam Safi, Christian Gluud, Janus C Jakobsen
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

Joshua Feinberg et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Approximately 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome worldwide in 2012. Acute coronary syndrome, also known as myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris, is caused by a sudden blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Percutaneous coronary intervention is often used for acute coronary syndrome, but previous systematic reviews on the effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents have shown conflicting results with regard to myocardial infarction; have not fully taken account of the risk of random and systematic errors; and have not included all relevant randomised clinical trials.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in people with acute coronary syndrome.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS from their inception to January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registers, the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases, and pharmaceutical company websites. In addition, we searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trials.

Selection criteria: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, or language.

Data collection and analysis: We followed our published protocol and the methodological recommendations of Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risks of systematic error by bias domains. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. Our primary assessment time point was at maximum follow-up. We assessed the quality of the evidence by the GRADE approach.

Main results: We included 25 trials randomising a total of 12,503 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence according to GRADE was low to very low. We included 22 trials where the participants presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 1 trial where participants presented with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 2 trials where participants presented with a mix of acute coronary syndromes.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. The absolute risk of death was 6.97% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 7.74% in the bare-metal stents group based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.03, 11,250 participants, 21 trials/22 comparisons, low-quality evidence). The absolute risk of a major cardiovascular event was 6.36% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 6.63% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11, 10,939 participants, 19 trials/20 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have sufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on either all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events at maximum follow-up.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed evidence of a benefit when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of a serious adverse event. The absolute risk of a serious adverse event was 18.04% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 23.01% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86, 11,724 participants, 22 trials/23 comparisons, low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result. When assessing each specific type of adverse event included in the serious adverse event outcome separately, the majority of the events were target vessel revascularisation. When target vessel revascularisation was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a benefit of drug-eluting stents, and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09, 9248 participants, 14 trials/15 comparisons, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, 10,217 participants, 18 trials/19 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of the Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction.No trials reported results on quality of life or angina.

Authors' conclusions: The current evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents may lead to fewer serious adverse events compared with bare-metal stents without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. However, our Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there currently was not enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of 10% for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, and there were no data on quality of life or angina. The evidence in this review was of low to very low quality, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented in this review.More randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome are to be assessed properly. More data are needed on the outcomes all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, quality of life, and angina to reduce the risk of random error.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The performance of this review is free of any real or perceived bias introduced by receipt of any benefit in cash or kind, on any subsidy derived from any source that may have or be perceived to have an interest in the outcomes of this review.

Joshua Feinberg (JF): no conflict of interest.

Emil Eik Nielsen (EEN): no conflict of interest.

Janette Greenhalgh (JG): no conflict of interest.

Juliet Hounsome (JH): no conflict of interest.

Naqash J Sethi (NS): no conflict of interest.

Sanam Safi (SS): no conflict of interest.

Christian Gluud (CG): member of the Copenhagen Trial Unit task force for developing Trial Sequential Analysis methods, manuals, and software.

Janus C Jakobsen (JCJ): no conflict of interest.

Figures

1
1
study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on all‐cause mortality at maximum follow‐up in 21 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on mortality in the control group of 7.76%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 10% in the experimental group; type I error of 2.0%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 45,046 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit or harm (red inward‐sloping lines). The cumulative Z‐curve did not cross the inner‐wedge futility line (the inner‐wedge futility could not be calculated due to too little information). Additionally, the cumulative Z‐score did not cross the RIS. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (2.0%).
5
5
Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on serious adverse events at maximum follow‐up in 22 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on a rate of serious adverse events in the control group of 22.95%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 10% in the experimental group; type I error of 2.0%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 24,853 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (2.0%).
6
6
Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on target vessel revascularisation at maximum follow‐up in 22 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on a rate of target vessel revascularisations in the control group of 13.28%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 30% in the experimental group; type I error of 3.33%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 5361 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (3.33%).
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 1: All‐cause mortality
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 2: All‐cause mortality best‐worst
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 3: All‐cause mortality worst‐best
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 4: All‐cause mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 5: All‐cause mortality according to type of ACS
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 6: All‐cause mortality according to length of maximum follow‐up
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 7: All‐cause mortality according to registration status
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 8: Serious adverse events
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 9: Serious adverse events best‐worst
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 10: Serious adverse events worst‐best
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 11: Serious adverse events according to type of drug‐eluting stent
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 12: Serious adverse events according to type of ACS
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 13: Serious adverse events according to length of maximum follow‐up
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 14: Serious adverse events according to registration status
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 15: Major cardiovascular events
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 16: Major cardiovascular events best‐worst
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 17: Major cardiovascular events worst‐best
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 18: Major cardiovascular events according to type of drug‐eluting stent
1.19
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 19: Major cardiovascular events according to type of ACS
1.20
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 20: Major cardiovascular events according to length of maximum follow‐up
1.21
1.21. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 21: Major cardiovascular events according to registration status
1.22
1.22. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 22: Cardiovascular mortality
1.23
1.23. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 23: Cardiovascular mortality best‐worst
1.24
1.24. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 24: Cardiovascular mortality worst‐best
1.25
1.25. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 25: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent
1.26
1.26. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 26: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of ACS
1.27
1.27. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 27: Cardiovascular mortality according to length of maximum follow‐up
1.28
1.28. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 28: Cardiovascular mortality according to registration status
1.29
1.29. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 29: Myocardial infarction
1.30
1.30. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 30: Myocardial infarction best‐worst
1.31
1.31. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 31: Myocardial infarction worst‐best
1.32
1.32. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 32: Myocardial infarction according to type of drug‐eluting stent
1.33
1.33. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 33: Myocardial infarction according to type of ACS
1.34
1.34. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 34: Myocardial infarction according to length of maximum follow‐up
1.35
1.35. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 35: Myocardial infarction according to registration status
1.36
1.36. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 36: Stent thrombosis
1.37
1.37. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 37: Stent thrombosis best‐worst
1.38
1.38. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 38: Stent thrombosis worst‐best
1.39
1.39. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 39: Stent thrombosis according to type of drug‐eluting stent
1.40
1.40. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 40: Stent thrombosis according to type of ACS
1.41
1.41. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 41: Stent thrombosis according to length of maximum follow‐up
1.42
1.42. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 42: Stent thrombosis according to registration status
1.43
1.43. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 43: Target vessel revascularisation
1.44
1.44. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 44: Target vessel revascularisation best‐worst
1.45
1.45. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 45: Target vessel revascularisation worst‐best
1.46
1.46. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 46: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of drug‐eluting stent
1.47
1.47. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 47: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of ACS
1.48
1.48. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 48: Target vessel revascularisation according to length of maximum follow‐up
1.49
1.49. Analysis
Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 49: Target vessel revascularisation according to registration status
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 1: All‐cause mortality
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 2: All‐cause mortality best‐worst
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 3: All‐cause mortality worst‐best
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 4: All‐cause mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 5: All‐cause mortality according to type of ACS
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 6: All‐cause mortality according to registration status
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 7: Serious adverse events
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 8: Serious adverse events best‐worst
2.9
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 9: Serious adverse events worst‐best
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 10: Serious adverse events according to type of drug‐eluting stent
2.11
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 11: Serious adverse events according to type of ACS
2.12
2.12. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 12: Serious adverse events according to registration status
2.13
2.13. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 13: Major cardiovascular events
2.14
2.14. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 14: Major cardiovascular events best‐worst
2.15
2.15. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 15: Major cardiovascular events worst‐best
2.16
2.16. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 16: Major cardiovascular events according to type of drug‐eluting stent
2.17
2.17. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 17: Major cardiovascular events according to type of ACS
2.18
2.18. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 18: Major cardiovascular events according to registration status
2.19
2.19. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 19: Cardiovascular mortality
2.20
2.20. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 20: Cardiovascular mortality best‐worst
2.21
2.21. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 21: Cardiovascular mortality worst‐best
2.22
2.22. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 22: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent
2.23
2.23. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 23: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of ACS
2.24
2.24. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 24: Cardiovascular mortality according to registration status
2.25
2.25. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 25: Myocardial infarction
2.26
2.26. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 26: Myocardial infarction best‐worst
2.27
2.27. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 27: Myocardial infarction worst‐best
2.28
2.28. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 28: Myocardial infarction according to type of drug‐eluting stent
2.29
2.29. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 29: Myocardial infarction according to type of ACS
2.30
2.30. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 30: Myocardial infarction according to registration status
2.31
2.31. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 31: Stent thrombosis
2.32
2.32. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 32: Stent thrombosis best‐worst
2.33
2.33. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 33: Stent thrombosis worst‐best
2.34
2.34. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 34: Stent thrombosis according to type of drug‐eluting stent
2.35
2.35. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 35: Stent thrombosis according to type of ACS
2.36
2.36. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 36: Stent thrombosis according to registration status
2.37
2.37. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 37: Target vessel revascularisation
2.38
2.38. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 38: Target vessel revascularisation best‐worst
2.39
2.39. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 39: Target vessel revascularisation worst‐best
2.40
2.40. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 40: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of drug‐eluting stent
2.41
2.41. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 41: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of ACS
2.42
2.42. Analysis
Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 42: Target vessel revascularisation according to registration status
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

References to studies included in this review

COMFORTABLE 2012 {published data only}
    1. Magro M, Raber L, Heg D, Taniwaki M, Kelbaek H, Ostojic M, et al. The MI SYNTAX score for risk stratification in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a substudy of the COMFORTABLE AMI trial. International Journal of Cardiology 2014;175(2):314-22. - PubMed
    1. Raber L, Kelbaek H, Baumbach A, Tuller D, Ostojic M, Juni P, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable versus bare-metal stents in patients with acute STEMI: 5 year results of the randomized COMFORTABLE AMI trial. European Heart Journal 2016;37:35.
    1. Raber L, Kelbaek H, Ostoijc M, Baumbach A, Tuller D, Birgelen C, et al. Comparison of biolimus eluted from an erodible stent coating with bare metal stents in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (COMFORTABLE AMI trial): rationale and design. EuroIntervention 2012;7(12):1435-43. [PMID: ] - PubMed
    1. Raber L, Kelbaek H, Taniwaki M, Ostojic M, Heg D, Baumbach A, et al. Biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction: two-year clinical results of the COMFORTABLE AMI trial. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions 2014;7(3):355-64. - PubMed
    1. Raber L, Ostojim M. Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: The COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2012;308(8):777-87. - PubMed
Darkahian 2014 {published data only}
    1. Darkahian M, Peighambari M. Comparison of the mid-term outcome between drug-eluting stent and bare metal stent implantation in patients undergoing primary PCI in Rajaie Heart Center January 2012 - April 2013. Iranian Heart Journal 2014;15(2):12-9.
DEB‐AMI 2012 {published data only}
    1. Belkacemi A, Agostoni P, Nathoe H, Shao C, Sangiorgi G, Voskuil M, et al. Results of the drug-eluting balloon in acute STEMI (DEB-AMI) trial: a multicenter randomised comparison of drug-eluting balloon plus bare-metal stent versus bare-metal stent versus DES in primary PCI with 6-month angiographic, intravascular, functional and 12-month clinical outcomes. EuroIntervention 2012;8(Suppl N):N25. - PubMed
    1. Belkacemi A, Agostoni P, Nathoe HM, Voskuil M, Shao C, Van Belle E, et al. First results of the DEB-AMI (drug eluting balloon in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) trial: a multicenter randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon plus bare-metal stent versus bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in primary percutaneous coronary intervention with 6-month angiographic, intravascular, functional, and clinical outcomes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2012;59(25):2327-37. [PMID: ] - PubMed
DEBATER 2012 {published data only}
    1. Wijnbergen I, Helmes H, Tijssen J, Brueren G, Peels K, Dantzig JM, et al. Comparison of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention with or without abciximab in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: DEBATER: the Eindhoven reperfusion study. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2012;5(3):313-22. - PubMed
    1. Wijnbergen I, Tijssen J, Brueren G, Peels K, Dantzig JM, Veer MV, et al. Long-term comparison of sirolimus-eluting and bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Coronary Artery Disease 2014;25(5):378-83. - PubMed
DEDICATION 2008 {published data only}
    1. Holmvang L, Kelbaek H, Kaltoft A, Thuesen L, Lassen JF, Clemmensen P, et al. Long-term outcome after drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 5 years follow-up from the randomized DEDICATION trial (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction). JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2013;6(6):548-53. - PubMed
    1. Kaltoft A, Kelbaek H, Clemmensen P, Helqvist S, Lassen JF, Klovgaard L, et al. Long-term outcome after drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 3-year follow-up of the DEDICATION trial. EuroIntervention 2010;6(Suppl H):H132. - PubMed
    1. Kaltoft A, Kelbaek H, Thuesen L, Lassen JF, Clemmensen P, Klovgaard L, et al. Long-term outcome after drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 3-year follow-up of the randomized DEDICATION (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2010;56(8):641-5. - PubMed
    1. Kelbaek H, Thuesen L, Helqvist S, Clemmensen P, Klovgaard L, Kaltoft A, et al. Drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction - eight-month follow-up in the drug elution and distal protection in acute myocardial infarction (DEDICATION) trial. Circulation 2008;118(11):1155-62. - PubMed
De Ribamar Costa 2012 {published data only}
    1. De Ribamar Costa J, Siqueira D, Abizaid A, Chamie D, Costa R, Viana R, et al. Serial grey-scale and radiofrequency intravascular assessment of plaque modification and vessel geometry at proximal and distal edges of bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2012;1:E141. - PubMed
DEVINE 2007 {published data only}
    1. Pitt JE, Reeve R, Watkin H, Whitlam G, Pulikal J, Ment N, et al. Drug eluting versus bare metal stents in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (DEVINE) - a randomised control trial. European Heart Journal 2007;28(1 Suppl):206.
Diaz 2007 {published data only}
    1. Díaz de la Llera LS, Ballesteros S, Nevado J, Fernández M, Villa M, Sánchez A, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents compared with standard stents in the treatment of patients with primary angioplasty. American Heart Journal 2007;154(1):164.e1-6. - PubMed
ELISA‐3 2016 {published data only}
    1. Remkes WS, Badings EA, Hermanides RS, Rasoul S, Dambrink JHE, Koopmans PC, et al. Randomised comparison of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stenting in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. Open Heart 2016;3(2):e000455. - PMC - PubMed
EXAMINATION 2012 {published data only}
    1. Brugaletta S, Sabate M, Cequier A, Iniguez A, Serra A, Hernandez-Antolin R, et al. Impact of everolimus-eluting stents on stent thrombosis as compared to conventional bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Insights from the EXAMINATION trial. European Heart Journal 2012;33:175.
    1. Sabate M, Cequier A, Iniguez A, Serra A, Hernandez-Antolin R, Mainar V, et al. Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380(9852):1482-90. [PMID: ] - PubMed
    1. Sabate M, Cequier A, Iniguez A, Serra A, Hernandez-Antolin R, Mainar V, et al. Rationale and design of the EXAMINATION trial: a randomised comparison between everolimus-eluting stents and cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention 2011;7(8):977-84. - PubMed
FIBISTEMI 2007 {published data only}
    1. Gao H, Yan HB, Zhu XL, Li N, Ai H, Wang J, et al. Firebird sirolimus eluting stent versus bare mental stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Chinese Medical Journal 2007;120(10):863-7. - PubMed
GRACIA‐3 2010 {published data only}
    1. Sanchez PL, Gimeno F, Ancillo P, Sanz JJ, Alonso-Briales JH, Bosa F, et al. Role of the paclitaxel-eluting stent and tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing postfibrinolysis angioplasty: the GRACIA-3 randomized clinical trial. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions 2010;3(4):297-307. - PubMed
HAAMU‐STENT 2006 {published data only}
    1. Tierala I, Syvanne M, Kupari M. Randomised comparison of a paclitaxel-eluting and a bare metal stent in STEMI-PCI. American Journal of Cardiology - TCT abstracts 2006;98(Meeting abstract):78M.
HORIZONS‐AMI 2009 {published data only}
    1. Mehran R, Brodie B, Cox DA, Grines CL, Rutherford B, Bhatt DL, et al. The Harmonizing Outcomes with RevasculariZatiON and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) Trial: study design and rationale. American Heart Journal 2008;156(1):44-56. [PMID: ] - PubMed
    1. Stone GW, Lansky AJ, Pocock SJ, Gersh BJ, Dangas G, Wong SC, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 2009;360(19):1946-59. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810116] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stone GW, Parise H, Witzenbichler B, Kirtane A, Guagliumi G, Peruga JZ, et al. Selection criteria for drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents and the impact of routine angiographic follow-up: 2-year insights from the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2010;56(19):1597-604. - PubMed
    1. Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, Peruga JZ, Brodie BR, Dudek D, et al. Heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor versus bivalirudin monotherapy and paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction (HORIZONS-AMI): final 3-year results from a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377(9784):2193-204. [PMID: ] - PubMed
König 2007 {published data only}
    1. König A, Leibig M, Rieber J, Schiele TM, Theisen K, Siebert U, et al. Randomized comparison of dexamethasone-eluting stents with bare metal stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome: serial angiographic and sonographic analysis. American Heart Journal 2007;153(6):979.e1–8. - PubMed
Mission 2008 {published data only}
    1. Atary JZ, Hoeven BL, Liem SS, Jukema JW, Bom JG, Atsma DE, et al. Three-year outcome of sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the MISSION! Intervention Study). American Journal of Cardiology 2010;106(1):4-12. - PubMed
    1. Boden H, Van Der Hoeven BL, Atary JZ, Liem SS, Van Der Wall EE, Schalij MJ. 5-year outcomes of the MISSION intervention study: a randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting to bare-metal stent implantation in patients with STEMI. European Heart Journal 2011;32:654.
    1. Boden H, Hoeven BL, Liem SS, Atary JZ, Cannegieter SC, Atsma DE, et al. Five-year clinical follow-up from the MISSION! Intervention Study: sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, a randomised controlled trial. EuroIntervention 2012;7(9):1021-9. - PubMed
    1. Hoeven BL, Liem S, Jukema JW, Suraphakdee N, Putter H, Dijkstra J, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 9-month angiographic and intravascular ultrasound results and 12-month clinical outcome results from the MISSION! intervention study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2008;51(6):618-26. - PubMed
MULTISTRATEGY 2008 {published data only}
    1. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Gambetti S, Bolognese L, Ribichini F, Colangelo S, et al. Three-year follow-up of the MULTIcentre evaluation of Single high-dose Bolus TiRofiban versus Abciximab with Sirolimus-eluting STEnt or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction StudY (MULTISTRATEGY). International Journal of Cardiology 2013;165(1):134-41. [PMID: ] - PubMed
    1. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Percoco G, Bolognese L, Vassanelli C, Colangelo S, et al. Comparison of angioplasty with infusion of tirofiban or abciximab and with implantation of sirolimus-eluting or uncoated stents. The MULTISTRATEGY Randomized Trial. JAMA 2008;299(15):1788-99. [PMID: ] - PubMed
OCTAMI 2010 {published data only}
    1. Guagliumi G, Sirbu V, Bezerra H, Biondi-Zoccai G, Fiocca L, Musumeci G, et al. Strut coverage and vessel wall response to zotarolimus-eluting and bare-metal stents implanted in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the OCTAMI (Optical Coherence Tomography in Acute Myocardial Infarction) Study. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2010;3(6):680-7. - PubMed
PASEO 2009a {published data only}
    1. Di Lorenzo E, De Luca G, Sauro R, Varricchio A, Capasso M, Lanzillo T, et al. The PASEO (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent in primary angioplasty) randomized trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2009;2(6):515-23. - PubMed
    1. Di Lorenzo E, Sauro R, Varricchio A, Capasso M, Lanzillo T, Manganelli F, et al. Benefits of drug-eluting stents as compared to bare metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: four year results of the paclitaxel or sirolimus-eluting stent vs bare metal stent in primary angioplasty (PASEO) randomized trial. American Heart Journal 2009;158(4):e43-50. - PubMed
PASSION 2006 {published data only}
    1. Dirksen M, Vink M, Suttorp M, Tijssen J, Patterson M, Slagboom T, et al. Two year follow up after primary PCI with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (the PASSION trial): a follow-up study. EuroIntervention 2009;4:64-70. - PubMed
    1. Laarman GJ, Suttorp MJ, Dirksen MT, Heerebeek L, Kiemeneij F, Slagboom T, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. New England Journal of Medicine 2006;355(11):1105-13. - PubMed
    1. Vink MA, Dirksen MT, Suttorp MJ, Tijssen JG, Etten J, Patterson MS, et al. 5-year follow-up after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a follow-up study of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2011;4(1):24-9. - PubMed
SELECTION 2007 {published data only}
    1. Chechi T, Vittori G, Biondi Zoccai GGL, Vecchio S, Falchetti E, Spaziani G. Single-center randomized evaluation of paclitaxel-eluting versus conventional stent in acute myocardial infarction (SELECTION). Journal of Interventional Cardiology 2007;20(4):282-91. - PubMed
SESAMI 2007 {published data only}
    1. Menichelli M, Parma A, Pucci E, Fiorilli R, De Felice F, Nazzaro M, et al. Randomized trial of sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in acute myocardial infarction (SESAMI). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2007;49(19):1924-30. - PubMed
    1. Musto C, Fiorilli R, De Felice F, Patti G, Nazzaro M, Scappaticci M, et al. Long-term outcome of sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stent in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: 5-year results of the SESAMI trial. Giornale Italiano di Cardiologia 2011;12(Suppl 1):4S. - PubMed
    1. Violini R, Musto C, De Felice F, Nazzaro MS, Cifarelli A, Petitti T, et al. Maintenance of long-term clinical benefit with sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 3-year results of the SESAMI (sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in acute myocardial infarction) trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2010;55(8):810-4. - PubMed
Steinwender 2008 {published data only}
    1. Steinwender C, Hofmann R, Kypta A, Kammler J, Kerschner K, Grund M, et al. In-stent restenosis in bare metal stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents after primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction and subsequent transcoronary transplantation of autologous stem cells. Clinical Cardiology 2008;31(8):356-9. - PMC - PubMed
Strozzi 2007 {published data only}
    1. Strozzi M, Anic D. Comparison of stent graft, sirolimus stent, and bare metal stent implanted in patients with acute coronary syndrome: clinical and angiographic follow up. Croatian Medical Journal 2007;48(3):348-52. - PMC - PubMed
Typhoon 2006 {published data only}
    1. Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, Beatt K, Bramucci E, Carrie D, et al. Sirolimus-eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 2006;355(11):1093-104. - PubMed
    1. Spaulding C, Teiger E, Commeau P, Varenne O, Bramucci E, Slama M, et al. Four-year follow-up of TYPHOON (trial to assess the use of the CYPHer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent in acute myocardial infarction treated with BallOON angioplasty). JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2011;4(1):14-23. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

ACUITY 2006 {published data only}
    1. Stone GW, Mclaurin BT, Cox DA, Bertrand ME, Lincoff AM, Moses JW, et al. Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes. New England Journal of Medicine 2006;355:2203-16. - PubMed
BARRICADE 2011 {published data only}
    1. Stone GW, Goldberg S, O'Shaughnessy C, Midei M, Siegel RM, Cristea E, et al. 5-year follow-up of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents compared with bare-metal stents in aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts: the randomized BARRICADE (barrier approach to restenosis: restrict intima to curtail adverse events) trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2012;4(3):300-9. - PubMed
DESSOLVE‐1 2011 {published data only}
    1. Sakamoto K, Waseda K, Yock PG, Honda Y, Wijns W, Ormiston J, et al. Arterial response to sirolimus eluting stents with bioabsorbable polymer: First IVUS Report from the DESSOLVE-I FIM Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2011;58(20, Suppl B):B32.
Gioia 2006 {published data only}
    1. Gioia G, Matthai W, Benassi A, Rana H, Levite HA, Ewing LG. Improved survival with drug-eluting stent implantation in comparison with bare metal stent in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions 2006;68:392-8. - PubMed
Halkin 2006 {published data only}
    1. Halkin A, Selzer F, Marroquin O, Laskey W, Detre K, Cohen H. Clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting vs. bare-metal stents in dialysis patients. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 2006;18:577-83. - PubMed
Han 2006 {published data only}
    1. Han SH, Ahn TH, Kang WC, Oh KJ, Chung WJ, Shin MS, et al. The favorable clinical and angiographic outcomes of a high-dose dexamethasone-eluting stent: randomized controlled prospective study. American Heart Journal 2006;152(5):887.e1-7. - PubMed
    1. Park YM, Han SH, Shin KC, Kim MG, Lee KH, Kang WC, et al. The favorable long term clinical outcomes of a high-dose dexamethasone-eluting stent: randomized controlled prospective study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2011;1:E1699.
Hausleiter 2005 {published data only}
    1. Hausleiter J, Kastrati A, Wessely R, Dibra A, Mehilli J, Schratzenstaller T, et al. Prevention of restenosis by a novel drug-eluting stent system with a dose-adjustable, polymer-free, on-site stent coating. European Heart Journal 2005;26:1475-81. - PubMed
Hoffmann 2007 {published data only}
    1. Hoffmann R, Stellbrink E, Schroder J, Grawe A, Vogel G, Blindt R, et al. Impact of the metabolic syndrome on angiographic and clinical events after coronary intervention using bare-metal or sirolimus-eluting stents. American Journal of Cardiology 2007;100:1347-52. - PubMed
Hokimoto 2015 {published data only}
    1. Hokimoto S, Mizuno Y, Sueta D, Morita S, Akasaka T, Tabata N, et al. High incidence of coronary spasm after percutaneous coronary interventions: comparison between new generation drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent. International Journal of Cardiology 2015;182:171-3. - PubMed
Ishii 2012 {published data only}
    1. Ishii H, Toriyama T, Aoyama T, Takahashi H, Tanaka M, Yoshikawa D, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with bare metal stent vs. drug-eluting stent in hemodialysis patients. Circulation Journal 2012;767(7):1609-15. - PubMed
JACK‐EPC 2013 {published data only}
    1. Wojakowski W, Pyrlik A, Król M, Buszman P, Ochala A, Milewski K, et al. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells are inversely correlated with in-stent restenosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes treated with EPC-capture stents (JACK-EPC trial). Minerva Cardioangiologica 2013;61:301-11. - PubMed
Kim 2006 {published data only}
    1. Kim Y-H, Park S-W, Lee CW, Hong M-K, Gwon H-C, Jang Y, et al. Comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent, paclitaxel-eluting stent, and bare metal stent in the treatment of long coronary lesions. Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions 2006;67:181-7. - PubMed
Lansky 2000 {published data only}
    1. Lansky AJ, Roubin GS, O'Shaughnessy CD, Moore PB, Dean LS, Raizner AE, et al. Randomized comparison of GR-II stent and Palmaz-Schatz stent for elective treatment of coronary stenoses. Circulation 2000;102(12):1364-8. - PubMed
Lasave 2007 {published data only}
    1. Lasave LI, de Ribamar Costa J Jr, Abizaid AA, Feres F, Tanajura LF, Staico R, et al. A three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound comparison between the new zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZoMaxx) and the non-drug-eluting TriMaxx stent. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 2007;19:303-8. - PubMed
MASTER 2012 {published data only}
    1. Costa JR Jr, Abizaid A, Dudek D, Silber S, Leon MB, Stone GW. Rationale and design of the MGuard for acute ST elevation reperfusion MASTER trial. Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions 2013;82(2):184-90. - PubMed
    1. Stone GW, Abizaid A, Silber S, Dizon JM, Merkely B, Costa RA, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter evaluation of a polyethylene terephthalate micronet mesh-covered stent (MGuard) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: The MASTER Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2012;60(19):1975-84. - PubMed
Meredith 2007 {published data only}
    1. Meredith IT, Ormiston J, Whitbourn R, Kay IP, Muller D, Popma JJ, et al. Four-year clinical follow-up after implantation of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent: ENDEAVOR I, the first-in-human study. American Journal of Cardiology 2007;100:56M-61M. - PubMed
Oyabu 2006 {published data only}
    1. Oyabu J, Ueda Y, Ogasawara N, Okada K, Hirayama A, Kodama K. Angioscopic evaluation of neointima coverage: sirolimus drug-eluting stent versus bare metal stent. American Heart Journal 2006;152:1168-74. - PubMed
PATENCY 2007 {published data only}
    1. Heldman A, Farhat N, Fry E, Cummins F, Roubin G, McGarvey J, et al. Paclitaxil-eluting stents for cytostatic prevention of restenosis: patency study follow-up. American Journal of Cardiology 2002;1(6 (S1)):H1–4.
PISCES 2005 {published data only}
    1. Serruys PW, Sianos G, Abizaid A, Aoki J, den Heijer P, Bonnier H, et al. The effect of variable dose and release kinetics on neointimal hyperplasia using a novel paclitaxel-eluting stent platform: the Paclitaxel In-Stent Controlled Elution Study (PISCES). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2005;46(2):253-60. - PubMed
Strategy 2005 {published data only}
    1. Valgimigli M, Percoco G, Malagutti P, Campo G, Ferrari F, Barbieri D, et al. Tirofiban and sirolimus-eluting stent vs abciximab and bare-metal stent for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial. JAMA 2005;293(17):2109-17. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Suzuki 2013 {published data only}
    1. Suzuki S, Ishii H, Matsudaira K, Okumura N, Yoshikawa D, Hayashi M, et al. Long-term outcome of drug-eluting vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Subgroup analysis of the Nagoya Acute Myocardial Infarction Study (NAMIS). Circulation Journal 2013;77(8):2024-31. - PubMed
TRUST 2003 {published data only}
    1. Hamm CW, Hugenholtz PG, Trust Investigators. Silicon carbide-coated stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions 2003;60(3):375-81. - PubMed
Turan 1998 {published data only}
    1. Turan F, Degertekin M, Gencbay M, Basaran Y, Yilmaz H, Dindar I, et al. Heparin-coated stent implantation in patients with unstable angina pectoris: a randomized trial. European Heart Journal 1998;19:284.
VESTASYNC 2014 {published data only}
    1. Costa JR Jr, Oliveira BA, Abizaid A, Costa R, Perin M, Abizaid A, et al. Clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound results of the VestSaync II trial. Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions 2014;84(7):1073-9. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Windecker 2005 {published data only}
    1. Windecker S, Simon R, Lins M, Klauss V, Eberli FR, Roffi M, et al. Randomized comparison of a titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stent with a stainless steel stent for coronary revascularization - The TiNOX trial. Circulation 2005;111:2617-22. - PubMed
XAMI 2013 {published data only}
    1. Hofma SH, Smits PC, Van't Hof A, Velders MA, Van Boven AJ. Low event rates at long-term follow-up in the randomized myocardial infarction XAMI trial comparing first and second generation drug eluting stents. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013;1:B78.

References to studies awaiting assessment

BASKET 2005a {published data only}
    1. Kaiser C, Brunner-La Rocca H, Buser P, Bonetti P, Osswald S, Linka A, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with a third-generation bare-metal stent in a real world setting: Randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial (BASKET). Lancet 2005;366:921-9. - PubMed
BASKET‐PROVE I 2010 {published data only}
    1. Kaiser C, Galatius S, Erne P, Eberli F, Alber H, Rickli H, et al. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;363(24):2310-9. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009406] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
BASKET‐PROVE II 2015 {published data only}
    1. Kaiser C, Galatius S, Jeger R, Gilgen N, Skov Jensen J, Naber CK, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents: main results of the Basel Stent Kosten-Effektivitäts Trial-PROspective Validation Examination II (BASKET-PROVE II), a randomized, controlled noninferiority 2-year outcome trial. Circulation 2015;131(1):74-81. [DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013520] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
EAGLE 2006 {published data only}
    1. Ischinger T. European study of Axxion and Glycocalix long-term evaluation. Herz 2006;31:596.
Erglis 2007 {published data only}
    1. Erglis A, Narbute I, Kumsars I, Jegere S, Mintale I, Zakke I, et al. A randomized comparison of paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2007;50(6):491-7. - PubMed
FUTURE I 2004 {published data only}
    1. Costa RA, Lansky AJ, Mintz GS, Mehran R, Tsuchiya Y, Negoita M, et al. Angiographic results of the first human experience with everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary lesions (the FUTURE I trial). American Journal of Cardiology 2005;95(1):113–6. - PubMed
    1. Grube E, Sonoda S, Ikeno F, Honda Y, Kar S, Chan C, et al. Six-and twelve-month results from first human experience using everolimus-eluting stents with bioabsorbable polymer. Circulation 2004;109:2168–71. - PubMed
FUTURE II 2004 {published data only}
    1. Storger H, Grube E, Hofmann M, Schwartz F, Haase J. Clinical experiences using everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease. Journal of Interventional Cardiology 2004;17(6):387-90. - PubMed
Han 2007 {published data only}
    1. Han YL, Wang SL, Jing QM, Yu HB, Wang B, Ma YY, et al. Midterm outcomes of prospective, randomized, single-center study of the Janus tacrolimus-eluting stent for treatment of native coronary artery lesions. Chinese Medical Journal 2007;120(7):552–6. - PubMed
Li 2004 {published data only}
    1. Li S, Fu X, Liu J, Wu W, Gu X, Ma N, et al. Randomized study to evaluate sirolimus-eluting stents implanted at coronary small vessel lesions. American Journal of Cardiology 2004;94(6A):218E.
NORSTENT 2016 {published data only}
    1. Bønaa KH, Mannsverk J, Wiseth R, Aaberge L, Myreng Y, Nygård O, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2016;375:1242-52. - PubMed
PRODIGY 2014 {published data only}
    1. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Percoco G, Monti M, Ferrari F, Tumscitz C, et al. Randomized comparison of 6- versus 24-month clopidogrel therapy after balancing anti-intimal hyperplasia stent potency in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Design and rationale for the PROlonging Dual-antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia study (PRODIGY). American Heart Journal 2010;160(5):804-11. [PMID: ] - PubMed
    1. Valgimigli M, Tebaldi M, Borghesi M, Branckx P, Campo G, Tumscitz C, et al. Two-year outcomes after first- or second-generation drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2014;7(1):20-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
SES‐SMART 2004 {published data only}
    1. Ardissino D, Cavallini C, Bramucci E, Indolfi C, Marzocchi A, Manari A, et al. Sirolimus-eluting vs uncoated stents for prevention of restenosis in small coronary arteries: a randomized trial. JAMA 2004;292(22):2727-34. [PMID: ] - PubMed
XIMA 2014 {published data only}
    1. Belder A, la Torre Hernandez JM, Lopez-Palop R, O'Kane P, Hernandez FH, Strange J, et al. A prospective randomized trial of everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in octogenarians. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2014;63(14):1371-5. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.053] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
ZEUS 2015 {published data only}
    1. Valgimigli M, Patialiakas A, Thury A, Colangelo S, Campo G, Tebaldi M, et al. Randomized comparison of zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint versus bare-metal stent implantation in uncertain drug-eluting stent candidates: rationale, design, and characterization of the patient population for the Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates study. American Heart Journal 2013;166(5):831-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
    1. Valgimigli M, Patialiakas A, Thury A, McFadden E, Colangelo S, Campo G, et al. Zotarolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in uncertain drug-eluting stent candidates. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2015;65(8):805-15. [PMID: ] - PubMed

Additional references

Abizaid 2010
    1. Abizaid A, Costa JR Jr. New drug-eluting stents: an overview on biodegradable and polymer-free next-generation stent systems. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions 2010;3(4):384-93. - PubMed
ACEP 2013
    1. American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey DE Jr, Chung MK, Lemos JA, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013;61(4):e78-140. - PubMed
Amsterdam 2014
    1. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, Casey DE Jr, Ganiats TG, Holmes DR Jr, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;130(25):2354-94. - PubMed
Baim 1996
    1. Baim DS, Grossman W. Complications of cardiac catheterization. In: Baim DS, Grossman W, editors(s). Cardiac Catheterization, Angiography and Intervention. Williams & Wilkins, 1996:17.
Braunwald 1998
    1. Braunwald E. Unstable angina: an etiologic approach to management. Circulation 1998;98(21):2219-22. - PubMed
Breall 2016
    1. Breall JA, Aroesty JM, Simons M. Overview of the non-acute management of unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-the-non-acute-management-of-unstab... (accessed 19 November 2015).
Brieger 2009
    1. Brieger D, Fox KA, Fitzgerald G, Eagle KA, Budaj A, Avezum A, et al. Predicting freedom from clinical events in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Heart 2009;95(11):888-94. - PubMed
Brok 2008
    1. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(8):763-9. - PubMed
Brok 2009
    1. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive. Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):287-98. - PubMed
Cantor 1998
    1. Cantor WJ, Lazzam C, Cohen EA, Bowman KA, Dolman S, Mackie K, et al. Failed coronary stent deployment. American Heart Journal 1998;136(6):1088-95. - PubMed
Cantor 2005
    1. Cantor WJ, Puley G, Natarajan MK, Dzavik V, Madan M, Fry A, et al. Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction - the RADIAL-AMI pilot randomized trial. American Heart Journal 2005;150(3):543-9. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Castellini 2016
    1. Castellini G, Nielsen EE, Gluud C. Comment on: "Cell therapy for heart disease: Trial sequential analyses of two Cochrane reviews". Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2016 Oct 11 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI: 10.1002/cpt.536] - DOI - PubMed
Chan 2013
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158(3):200-7. - PMC - PubMed
Chen 2015
    1. Chen W, Habraken TC, Hennink WE, Kok RJ. Polymer-free drug-eluting stents: an overview of coating strategies and comparison with polymer-coated drug-eluting stents. Bioconjugate Chemistry 2015;26(7):1277-88. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Cooper 2000
    1. Cooper R, Cutler J, Desvigne-Nickens P, Fortmann SP, Friedman L, Havlik R, et al. Trends and disparities in coronary heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in the United States: findings of the national conference on cardiovascular disease prevention. Circulation 2000;102(25):3137-47. [PMID: ] - PubMed
CTU 2011 [Computer program]
    1. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) (www.ctu.dk/tsa). Copenhagen Trial Unit (CTU), Centre for Clinical Intervention Research. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011.
Cutlip 2002
    1. Cutlip DE, Chauhan MS, Baim DS, Ho KK, Popma JJ, Carrozza JP, et al. Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from multicenter clinical trials. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2002;40(12):2082-9. - PubMed
Cutlip 2007
    1. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, Es GA, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007;115(17):2344-51. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Dangas 2002
    1. Dangas G, Kuepper F. Restenosis: repeat narrowing of a coronary artery. Circulation 2002;105(22):2586. - PubMed
Degertekin 2002
    1. Degertekin M, Regar E, Tanabe K, Lee CH, Serruys PW. Sirolimus eluting stent in the treatment of atherosclerosis coronary artery disease. Minerva Cardioangiologica 2002;50(5):405-18. [PMID: ] - PubMed
De Luca 2012
    1. De Luca G, Dirksen MT, Spaulding C, Kelbaek H, Schalij M, Thuesen L, et al. Drug-eluting vs bare-metal stents in primary angioplasty: a pooled patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials. Archives of Internal Medicine 2012;172(8):611-21. - PubMed
Demets 1987
    1. Demets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6(3):341-50. [PMID: ] - PubMed
DerSimonian 1986
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177-88. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Düber 1986
    1. Düber C, Jungbluth A, Rumpelt HJ, Erbel R, Meyer J, Thoenes W. Morphology of the coronary arteries after combined thrombolysis and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. American Journal of Cardiology 1986;58(9):698-703. - PubMed
Dudas 2013
    1. Dudas K, Björck L, Jernberg T, Lappas G, Wallentin L, Rosengren A. Differences between acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina: a longitudinal cohort study reporting findings from the Register of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA). BMJ Open 2013;3(1):e002155. - PMC - PubMed
Duval 2000
    1. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455-63. - PubMed
Erbel 1998
    1. Erbel R, Haude M, Höpp HW, Franzen D, Rupprecht HJ, Heublein B, et al. Coronary-artery stenting compared with balloon angioplasty for restenosis after initial balloon angioplasty. Restenosis Stent Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine 1998;339(23):1672-8. - PubMed
Fajadet 2006
    1. Fajadet J, Wijns W, Laarman GJ, Kuck KH, Ormiston J, Münzel T, et al. Randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting phosphorylcholine-encapsulated stent for treatment of native coronary artery lesions: clinical and angiographic results of the ENDEAVOR II trial. Circulation 2006;114(8):798-806. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Farooq 2013
    1. Farooq V, Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, Meliga E, Vergouwe Y, Chieffo A, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet 2013;381(9867):639-50. - PubMed
Fischman 1994
    1. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, Schatz RA, Savage MP, Penn I, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(8):496-501. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Garattini 2016
    1. Garattini S, Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Bertele V, Banzi R, Rath A, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice: overview of threats to the validity of evidence and how to minimise them. European Journal of Internal Medicine 2016;32:13-21. - PubMed
Gensini 1983
    1. Gensini GG. A more meaningful scoring system for determining the severity of coronary heart disease. American Journal of Cardiology 1983;51(3):606. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Gluud 2006
    1. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006;163(6):493-501. - PubMed
Greenhalgh 2010
    1. Greenhalgh J, Hockenhull J, Rao N, Dundar Y, Dickson RC, Bagust A. Drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for angina or acute coronary syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 5. Art. No: CD004587. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004587.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Grüntzig 1978
    1. Grüntzig A. Transluminal dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis. Lancet 1978;1(8058):263. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Grüntzig 1979
    1. Grüntzig AR, Senning A, Siegenthaler WE. Nonoperative dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. New England Journal of Medicine 1979;301(2):61-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Gupta 2003
    1. Gupta M, Chang WC, Van de Werf F, Granger CB, Midodzi W, Barbash G, et al. International differences in in-hospital revascularization and outcomes following acute myocardial infarction. European Heart Journal 2003;24(18):1640-50. - PubMed
Guyatt 2008
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924-6. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Hamon 2009
    1. Hamon M, Rasmussen LH, Manoukian SV, Cequier A, Lincoff MA, Rupprecht HJ, et al. Choice of arterial access site and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed with an early invasive strategy: the ACUITY trial. EuroIntervention 2009;5(1):115-20. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Harbord 2006
    1. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2006;25(20):3443-57. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Haude 2013
    1. Haude M, Erbel R, Erne P, Verheye S, Degen H, Böse D, et al. Safety and performance of the drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold (DREAMS) in patients with de-novo coronary lesions: 12 month results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial. Lancet 2013;381(9869):836-44. - PubMed
Haude 2016
    1. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, Toelg R, Lemos PA, Birgelen C, et al. Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de-novo coronary artery lesions (BIOSOLVE-II): 6 month results of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, first-in-man trial. Lancet 2016;387(10013):31-9. - PubMed
Hicks 2010
    1. Hicks KA, Hung JHM, Mahaffey KW, Mehran R, Nissen SE, Stockbridge NL, et al. Standardized definitions for end point events in cardiovascular trials. www.clinpage.com/images/uploads/endpoint-defs_11-16-2010.pdf (accessed 24 June 2016).
Higgins 2002
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539-58. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JP, Whitehead A, Simmonds M. Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2011;30(9):903-21. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Hoenig 2010
    1. Hoenig MR, Aroney CN, Scott IA. Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 3. Art. No: CD004815. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004815.pub4] - DOI - PubMed
Holmes 2004
    1. Holmes DR Jr, Leon MB, Moses JW, Popma JJ, Cutlip D, Fitzgerald PJ, et al. 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 2004;109(5):634-40. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Hrobjartsson 2012
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed) 2012;344:e1119. - PubMed
Hrobjartsson 2013
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 2013;185(4):E201-11. - PMC - PubMed
Hrobjartsson 2014
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Rasmussen JV, Hilden J, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. International Journal of Epidemiology 2014;43(3):937-48. - PubMed
Hrobjartsson 2014a
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, Hilden J, Brorson S. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. International Journal of Epidemiology 2014;43(4):1272-83. - PMC - PubMed
ICH‐GCP 1997
    1. International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group (ICH-EWG). International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice in CFR & ICH Guidelines. Vol. 1. Barnett International/PAREXEL, 1997.
Ioannidis 2009
    1. Ioannidis JP. Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. Archives of Internal Medicine 2009;169(19):1737-9. - PubMed
Jackson 2017
    1. Jackson D, Turner R. Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 2017 Apr 4 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1240] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Jakobsen 2014
    1. Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Winkel P, Lange T, Gluud C. Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014;14:120. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Jakobsen 2016
    1. Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Lange T, Gluud C. Viewpoint: taking into account risks of random errors when analysing multiple outcomes in systematic reviews. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016;3:ED000111. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.ED000111] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Kastrati 2007
    1. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Pache J, Kaiser C, Valgimigli M, Kelbaek H, et al. Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;356(10):1030-9. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Keus 2010
    1. Keus F, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, Laarhoven CJ. Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2010;10:90. - PMC - PubMed
Kip 2008
    1. Kip KE, Hollabaugh K, Marroquin OC, Williams DO. The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: the story of major adverse cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2008;51(7):701-7. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Kjaergard 2001
    1. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(11):982-9. - PubMed
Lee 2005
    1. Lee MS, Shah AP, Aragon J, Jamali A, Dohad S, Kar S, et al. Drug-eluting stenting is superior to bare metal stenting in saphenous vein grafts. Catheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions 2005;66(4):507-11. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Levin 2016
    1. Levin T, Aroesty JM. Stable ischemic heart disease: indications for revascularization. www.uptodate.com/contents/stable-ischemic-heart-disease-indications-for-... (accessed 10 September 2015).
Levine 2011
    1. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011;124(23):2574-609. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Levine 2016
    1. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2016;67(10):1235-50. - PubMed
Lloyd‐Jones 2010
    1. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, Carnethon M, Dai S, De Simone G, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics - 2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010;121(7):948-54. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Lundh 2012
    1. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. Art. No: MR000033. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Lundh 2017
    1. Lundh A, Bero L. The ties that bind. BMJ 2017;356:j176. - PubMed
Macaya 1996
    1. Macaya C, Serruys PW, Ruygrok P, Suryapranata H, Mast G, Klugmann S, et al. Continued benefit of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty: one-year clinical follow-up of Benestent trial. Benestent Study Group. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1996;27(2):255-61. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Maddox 2007
    1. Maddox TM, Reid KJ, Rumsfeld JS, Spertus JA. One-year health status outcomes of unstable angina versus myocardial infarction: a prospective, observational cohort study of ACS survivors. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2007;7:28. - PMC - PubMed
Meyer 1981
    1. Meyer J, Schmitz H, Erbel R, Kiesslich T, Böcker-Josephs B, Krebs W, et al. Treatment of unstable angina pectoris with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 1981;7(4):361-71. - PubMed
Meyer 1982
    1. Meyer J, Merx W, Dörr R, Lambertz H, Bethge C, Effert S. Successful treatment of acute myocardial infarction shock by combined percutaneous transluminal coronary recanalization (PTCR) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). American Heart Journal 1982;103(1):132-4. - PubMed
Meyer 1982a
    1. Meyer J, Merx W, Schmitz H, Erbel R, Kiesslich T, Dörr R, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty immediately after intracoronary streptolysis of transmural myocardial infarction. Circulation 1982;66(5):905-13. - PubMed
Meyer 1983
    1. Meyer J, Schmitz HJ, Kiesslich T, Erbel R, Krebs W, Schulz W, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in patients with stable and unstable angina pectoris: analysis of early and late results. American Heart Journal 1983;106(5 Pt 1):973-80. - PubMed
Moher 1998
    1. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352(9128):609-13. - PubMed
Morice 2002
    1. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, Fajadet J, Ban Hayashi E, Perin M, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;346(23):1773-80. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Moses 2003
    1. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, Fitzgerald PJ, Holmes DR, O'Shaughnessy C, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. New England Journal of Medicine 2003;349(14):1315-23. [PMID: ] - PubMed
NICE 2008
    1. NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta152?unlid=1066690929201610722145 (accessed prior to 12 February 2016).
Nichols 2014
    1. Nichols M, Townsend N, Scarborough P, Rayner M. Cardiovascular disease in Europe 2014: epidemiological update. European Heart Journal 2014;35(42):2929. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Nordmann 2005
    1. Nordmann AJ, Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Harr T, Young J. Primary stenting versus primary balloon angioplasty for treating acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. Art. No: CD005313. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005313] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Pocock 2015
    1. Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Stone GW. Design of major randomized trials: part 3 of a 4-part series on statistics for clinical trials. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2015;66(24):2757-66. - PubMed
Pogue 1997
    1. Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997;18(6):580-93; discussion 661-6. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Pohjola‐Sintonen 1989
    1. Pohjola-Sintonen S, Muller JE, Stone PH, Willich SN, Antman EM, Davis VG, et al. Ventricular septal and free wall rupture complicating acute myocardial infarction: experience in the Multicenter Investigation of Limitation of Infarct Size. American Heart Journal 1989;117(4):809-18. - PubMed
Puel 1988
    1. Puel J, Juilliere Y, Bertrand ME, Rickards AF, Sigwart U, Serruys PW. Early and late assessment of stenosis geometry after coronary arterial stenting. American Journal of Cardiology 1988;61(8):546-53. - PubMed
Puricel 2015
    1. Puricel S, Arroyo D, Corpataux N, Baeriswyl G, Lehmann S, Kallinikou Z, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2015;65(8):791-801. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Ringqvist 1983
    1. Ringqvist I, Fisher LD, Mock M, Davis KB, Wedel H, Chaitman BR, et al. Prognostic value of angiographic indices of coronary artery disease from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS). Journal of Clinical Investigation 1983;71(6):1854-66. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Roffi 2016
    1. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting Without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal 2016;37(3):267-315. - PubMed
Rosamond 2008
    1. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2008 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2008;117(4):e25-146. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Roukoz 2009
    1. Roukoz H, Bavry AA, Sarkees ML, Mood GR, Kumbhani DJ, Rabbat MG, et al. Comprehensive meta-analysis on drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents during extended follow-up. American Journal of Medicine 2009;122(6):581. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Rücker 2008
    1. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter J. Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2008;27(5):746-63. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Ruiz‐Bailén 2008
    1. Ruiz-Bailén M, Rucabado-Aguilar L, Castillo-Rivera AM, Expósito-Ruiz M, Morante-Valle A, Rodríguez-García JJ, et al. Cardiogenic shock in acute coronary syndrome in the Spanish population. Medical Science Monitor 2008;14(11):PH46-57. - PubMed
Savović 2012
    1. Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012;157(6):429-38. - PubMed
Savović 2012a
    1. Savović J, Jones H, Altman D, Harris R, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technology Assessment 2012;16(35):1-82. - PubMed
Schmidt 2012
    1. Schmidt M, Jacobsen JB, Lash TL, Bøtker HE, Sørensen HT. 25 year trends in first time hospitalisation for acute myocardial infarction, subsequent short and long term mortality, and the prognostic impact of sex and comorbidity: a Danish nationwide cohort study. BMJ 2012;344:e356. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Schulz 1995
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408-12. - PubMed
Schulz 2010
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010;152(11):726-732. - PubMed
Seizer 1982
    1. Seizer A. On the limitation of therapeutic intervention trials in ischemic heart disease: a clinican's viewpoint. American Journal of Cardiology 1982;49(1):252-5. - PubMed
Serruys 1994
    1. Serruys PW, Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, Macaya C, Rutsch W, Heyndrickx G, et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(8):489-95. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Serruys 1998
    1. Serruys PW, Hout B, Bonnier H, Legrand V, Garcia E, Macaya C, et al. Randomised comparison of implantation of heparin-coated stents with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with coronary artery disease (Benestent II). Lancet 1998;352(9129):673-81. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Serruys 2010
    1. Serruys PW, Silber S, Garg S, Geuns RJ, Richardt G, Buszman PE, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;363(2):136-46. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Sianos 2005
    1. Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, Morice MC, Colombo A, Dawkins K, et al. The SYNTAX score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 2005;1(2):219-27. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Skoog 2015
    1. Skoog M, Saarimäki JM, Gluud C, Sheinin M, Erlendsson K, Aamdal S, et al. Transparency and registration in clinical research in the Nordic countries. The Nordic Trial Alliance Working Group on Transparency and Registration under NordForsk 2015.
Stankovic 2004
    1. Stankovic G, Orlic D, Corvaja N, Airoldi F, Chieffo A, Spanos V, et al. Incidence, predictors, in-hospital, and late outcomes of coronary artery perforations. American Journal of Cardiology 2004;93(2):213-6. - PubMed
Stata 2015 [Computer program]
    1. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, 2015.
Sterne 2009
    1. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Stettler 2007
    1. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, Kastrati A, Morice MC, Schömig A, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007;370(9591):937-48. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Stevenson 1989
    1. Stevenson WG, Linssen GC, Havenith MG, Brugada P, Wellens HJ. The spectrum of death after myocardial infarction: a necropsy study. American Heart Journal 1989;118(6):1182-8. - PubMed
Stone 2004
    1. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, Hermiller J, O'Shaughnessy C, Mann JT, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;350(3):221-31. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Stone 2004a
    1. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, Hermiller J, O'Shaughnessy C, Mann JT, et al. One-year clinical results with the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent: the TAXUS-IV trial. Circulation 2004;109(16):1942-7. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Stone 2010
    1. Stone GW, Rizvi A, Newman W, Mastali K, Wang JC, Caputo R, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;362(18):1663-74. - PubMed
Suh 2011
    1. Suh HS, Song HJ, Choi JE, Jang EJ, Son HJ, Lee SM, et al. Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2011;27(1):11-22. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Sweeting 2004
    1. Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Statistics in Medicine 2004;23(9):1351-75. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Tamai 2000
    1. Tamai H, Igaki K, Kyo E, Kosuga K, Kawashima A, Matsui S, et al. Initial and 6-month results of biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents in humans. Circulation 2000;102(4):399-404. - PubMed
Taylor 1998
    1. Taylor SJ, Tweedie RL. Practical estimates of the effect of publication bias in meta-analysis. Australian Epidemiologist 1998;5:14-7.
Thombs 2006
    1. Thombs BD, Bass EB, Ford DE, Stewart KJ, Tsilidis KK, Patel U, et al. Prevalence of depression in survivors of acute myocardial infarction. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2006;21(1):30-8. - PMC - PubMed
Thorlund 2009
    1. Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Ioannidis JP, Thabane L, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):276-86. - PubMed
Thorlund 2011
    1. Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. User manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). www.ctu.dk/tsa/files/tsa_manual.pdf (accessed 15 May 2015).
Thygesen 2012
    1. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, Writing Group on behalf of the Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Global Heart 2012;7(4):275-95. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Turner 2013
    1. Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JP. The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews. PLoS ONE 2013;8(3):e59202. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Turpie 2006
    1. Turpie AG. Burden of disease: medical and economic impact of acute coronary syndromes. American Journal of Managed Care 2006;12(16 Suppl):S430-4. - PubMed
Ware 1992
    1. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 1992;30(6):473-83. - PubMed
Wetterslev 2008
    1. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(1):64-75. - PubMed
Wetterslev 2009
    1. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009;9:86. - PMC - PubMed
Wetterslev 2017
    1. Wetterslev J, Jakobsen JC, Gluud C. Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017;17(1):39. - PMC - PubMed
White 2008
    1. White HD, Chew DP. Acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 2008;372(9638):570-84. - PubMed
WHO 2015
    1. World Health Organization (WHO). Cardiovascular diseases. www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/en/ (accessed 27 January 2015).
Windecker 2014
    1. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). European Heart Journal 2014;35(37):2541-619. - PubMed
Wood 2008
    1. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336(7644):601-5. - PMC - PubMed
Wyrwich 2004
    1. Wyrwich KW, Spertus JA, Kroenke K, Tierney WM, Babu AN, Wolinsky FD, Heart Disease Expert Panel. Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease: an expert consensus panel report. American Heart Journal 2004;147(4):615-22. - PubMed
Zheng 2014
    1. Zheng F, Xing S, Gong Z, Xing Q. Five-year outcomes for first generation drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart, Lung & Circulation 2014;23(6):542-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Feinberg 2016
    1. Feinberg J, Nielsen EE, Greenhalgh J, Hounsome J, Sethi NJ, Safi S, et al. Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 12. Art. No: CD012481. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012481] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources