First-in-man use of polymer-free valsartan-eluting stents in small coronary vessels: a comparison to polymer-free rapamycin (2%)-eluting stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Orally administered angiotensin receptor antagonists administered after bare-metal stent implantation and even after drug-eluting stent implantation seem to lower in-stent restenosis rates.Whether valsartan-eluting stents are similarly effective was tested here in a first-in-man trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The efficacy of a polymer-free drug-eluting stent coated with 300 mcg valsartan was compared to a coating with a 2% rapamycin solution in small (<or= 2.5 mm) coronary vessels with and without oral valsartan on the basis of the YUKON Choice stent system (Translumina GmbH, Hechingen, Germany). Fifteen patients (eight males, mean age 64.4+/-7.7 years) were treated with YUKON Choice valsartan-eluting stents and 30 patients (24 males, mean age 65.7+/-8.4 years) received YUKON Choice rapamycin-eluting stents. Clopidogrel was given for six months in all patients. RESULTS: Within the first 30 days, no adverse events occurred in either group. Binary in-stent restenosis rate was 30.8% (four in 13 angiographic controls) in the valsartan-eluting stent group and 35.0% (eight in 20 angiographic controls) in the rapamycin-eluting YUKON Choice stent group. Mean late lumen loss was 0.78+/-0.53 mm and 0.79+/-0.58 mm, respectively. Target lesion and target vessel revascularisation rate was 26.6% and 25.0%, respectively. No restenoses in rapamycin-eluting YUKON Choice stents appeared in 12 patients with adjunct oral valsartan administration. CONCLUSIONS: If polymer-free YUKON Choice stents are used in small vessels, valsartan-eluting stents show an identical efficacy as rapamycin-loaded stents. In patients with rapamycin-eluting YUKON Choice stents it seems that the efficacy can be increased by oral valsartan administration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".