Comparison of the SYNERGY with the PROMUS (XIENCE V) and bare metal and polymer-only Element control stents in porcine coronary arteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study evaluated vascular compatibility of the novel platinum chromium alloy Element stent platform delivering abluminal everolimus from a poly-lactide-co-glycolide bioabsorbable polymer (SYNERGY stent), currently undergoing clinical trial, compared with the PROMUS (XIENCE V) and bare metal and polymer-only Element stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stents (n=161) were implanted one per coronary artery in 72 swine at a stent-to-artery ratio of 1.1:1. Similar numbers of each device group were explanted at each of 30, 90, 180, and 360 days (except no PROMUS (XIENCE V) stent at 360 days) for pathological analysis. There was no stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or strut fractures in any group. Vascular response was similar between the SYNERGY and PROMUS (XIENCE V) stents, with no thrombi and complete endothelialisation on both scanning electron microscopy and histology at 30, 90 and 180 days. There were no significant differences for the morphologic parameters of luminal thrombus, endothelial cell coverage, strut tissue coverage, inflammation, internal elastic lamina (IEL) disruption, external elastic lamina (EEL) disruption and medial smooth muscle cell loss across device groups or between time points, but there was mild but greater (p<0.0001) para-strut fibrin at 30 days for both drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with the bare and polymer-only controls; this difference completely dissipated by 90 days. Inflammation was predominantly minimal to mild for all device types. No morphometric parameters, including intimal thickness, stent profile-based area stenosis, and EEL area were significantly different when comparing the SYNERGY stent with the bare metal Element and polymer-only Element control stents at 90, 180 and 360 days. CONCLUSIONS: In this non-injured porcine coronary artery model, the bioabsorbable polymer SYNERGY stent demonstrated vascular compatibility equivalent to the PROMUS (XIENCE V) stent and to the bare metal and polymer-only Element stents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".