FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2772077871> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2772077871 endingPage "2019.e16" @default.
• W2772077871 startingPage "2013" @default.
• W2772077871 abstract "BackgroundWith the advent of bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents, percutaneous coronary intervention has emerged as an alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting surgery for unprotected left main disease. However, whether the evolution of stents technology has translated into better results after percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to compare coronary artery bypass grafting with stents of different generations for left main disease by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials.MethodsAll randomized controlled trials with at least 1 arm randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention with stents or coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease were included. Bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents of first- and second-generation were compared with coronary artery bypass grafting. Poisson methods and Bayesian framework were used to compute the head-to-head incidence rate ratio and 95% credible intervals. Primary end points were the composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke and repeat revascularization.ResultsNine randomized controlled trials were included in the final analysis. Six trials compared percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 4654), and 3 trials compared different types of stents (n = 1360). Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 5 years. Second-generation drug-eluting stents (incidence rate ratio, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 1.1-1.6), but not bare metal stents (incidence rate ratio, 0.63; 95% credible interval, 0.27-1.4), and first-generation drug-eluting stents (incidence rate ratio, 0.85; 95% credible interval, 0.65-1.1) were associated with a significantly increased risk of death/myocardial infarction/stroke when compared with coronary artery bypass grafting. When compared with coronary artery bypass grafting, the highest risk of repeat revascularization was observed for bare metal stents (hazard ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-14), whereas first-generation drug-eluting stents (incidence rate ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.4) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (incidence rate ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.4) were comparable.ConclusionsThe introduction of new-generation drug-eluting stents did not translate into better outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention when compared with coronary artery bypass grafting." @default.
• W2772077871 created "2017-12-22" @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5002872853 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5015199341 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5016046607 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5018195873 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5018627431 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5030079078 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5030956368 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5033459729 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5041195250 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5054764500 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5067422072 @default.
• W2772077871 creator A5072147300 @default.
• W2772077871 date "2018-05-01" @default.
• W2772077871 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2772077871 title "New-generation stents compared with coronary bypass surgery for unprotected left main disease: A word of caution" @default.
• W2772077871 cites W1617328014 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W1966585409 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W1990032289 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2012932483 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2040557955 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2047021474 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2048944931 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2049120615 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2060746220 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2063148325 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2066240869 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2073122940 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2079386592 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2098923148 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2144625636 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2149623073 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2150529573 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2156365086 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2539688728 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2544723010 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W2743919718 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W3106333376 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W584804003 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W94192170 @default.
• W2772077871 cites W96070148 @default.
• W2772077871 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.11.066" @default.
• W2772077871 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29338862" @default.
• W2772077871 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2772077871 type Work @default.
• W2772077871 sameAs 2772077871 @default.
• W2772077871 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2772077871 countsByYear W27720778712018 @default.
• W2772077871 countsByYear W27720778712020 @default.
• W2772077871 countsByYear W27720778712021 @default.
• W2772077871 countsByYear W27720778712022 @default.
• W2772077871 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5002872853 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5015199341 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5016046607 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5018195873 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5018627431 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5030079078 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5030956368 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5033459729 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5041195250 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5054764500 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5067422072 @default.
• W2772077871 hasAuthorship W2772077871A5072147300 @default.
• W2772077871 hasBestOaLocation W27720778711 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C167704817 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C207103383 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C2776820930 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C2778213512 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C2778583881 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C2779464278 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C2780400711 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C500558357 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C126322002 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C141071460 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C164705383 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C167704817 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C168563851 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C207103383 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C2776820930 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C2778213512 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C2778583881 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C2779464278 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C2780400711 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C44249647 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C500558357 @default.
• W2772077871 hasConceptScore W2772077871C71924100 @default.
• W2772077871 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2772077871 hasLocation W27720778711 @default.
• W2772077871 hasLocation W27720778712 @default.
• W2772077871 hasLocation W27720778713 @default.

• next