Pivotal, randomized U.S. study of the Symbiot™ covered stent system in patients with saphenous vein graft disease: Eight‐month angiographic and clinical results from the Symbiot III trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and angiographic outcomes of the Symbiot ePTFE covered stent versus bare metal stents (BMS) for the treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease. BACKGROUND: The Symbiot stent was developed to reduce periprocedural complications, by potentially preventing distal embolization, and to serve as a possible barrier to cell migration, thus reducing restenosis. METHODS: Symbiot III is a prospective, randomized trial of 400 patients at 45 US sites, with 201 patients in the Symbiot group and 199 in the BMS group. Randomization was stratified based on the intended use of embolic protection devices and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The primary endpoint was percent diameter stenosis (%DS) as measured by quantitative coronary angiography at 8 months. Secondary endpoints included MACE (cardiac death, MI, TVR). RESULTS: The groups were well matched for all baseline clinical and lesion characteristics. At 8 months, %DS was comparable between groups (30.9% Symbiot, 31.9% BMS, P = 0.80). Although the rates of binary restenosis in the stented segment were similar (29.1% Symbiot, 21.9% BMS, P = 0.17), more patients in the Symbiot group had binary restenosis at the proximal edge (9.0% Symbiot, 1.8% BMS, P = 0.0211). There was no difference in the incidence of MACE between groups (30.6% Symbiot, 26.6% BMS, P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show an advantage for the Symbiot stent in the treatment of degenerated SVGs. This PTFE covered stent does not appear to act as a barrier to prevent restenosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".