Does stent strut design impact clinical outcomes: comparative safety and efficacy of Endeavor Resolute versus Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Percutaneous coronary intervention is the most commonly performed method of revascularizing obstructive coronary artery disease. The impact of stent strut design on clinical outcomes remains unclear. The Endeavour Resolute (ER-ZES) and the Resolute Integrity (RI-ZES) zotarolimus-eluting stents utilize identical polymers and anti-proliferative agents, differing only in their respective strut design. This study assessed the comparative safety and efficacy of these two stents in unrestricted contemporary real-world practice. METHODS: A total of 542 patients were identified, corresponding to 340 ER-ZES and 480 RI-ZES. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined by a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. Secondary endpoints included post-procedural length of stay, in-stent restenosis, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, coronary artery bypass grafting and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 3.2% of the ER-ZES cohort and 5.0% of the RI-ZES cohort (p= 0.43). Adjusted analysis utilizing propensity score-adjusted odds ratio for MACE, was 1.37 (95% CI 0.46-4.07, p=0.57). The mortality rate (0.9% ER-ZES vs. 1.9% RI-ZES, p=0.59), non-fatal MI (2.3% ER-ZES vs. 3.1% RI-ZES, p=0.75) and stroke (0.0% ER-ZES vs. 0.3% RI-ZES, p=0.85) were not different. Additionally, there was no difference in any of secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance and safety of both ER-ZES and RI-ZES were not statistically different, despite differences in stent strut design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".