Procedural and Long-Term Outcomes of Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) for the percutaneous treatment of chronic total occlusions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a multicenter registry of consecutive chronic total occlusion patients treated with BRS (Absorb; Abbott Vascular) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 5 institutions. Long-term target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was the primary end point. Inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Cox regression was used to account for pretreatment differences between the 2 groups. A total of 537 patients (n=153 BRS; n=384 DES) were included. BRS patients were younger and had lower prevalence of comorbidities. Overall mean Japan-Chronic Total Occlusion (J-CTO) score was 1.43±1.16, with no differences between groups. Procedural success was achieved in 99.3% and 96.6% of BRS- and DES-treated patients, respectively (P=0.07). At a median follow-up of 703 days, there were no differences in target-vessel failure between BRS and DES (4.6% versus 7.7%; P=0.21). By adjusted Cox regression analysis, there were still no significant differences between BRS and DES (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-3.72; P=0.34). However, secondary analyses suggested a signal toward higher ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of BRS versus second-generation DES in chronic total occlusion was associated with similar risk of target-vessel failure at long-term follow-up. However, a signal toward increased ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS was observed. Large randomized studies should confirm these findings.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".