Abstract 2150: A European and Canadian Multicenter Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of the Sirolimus-Eluting Stent (SES) in Patients with De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (NEW-SIRIUS): 5-Year Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : NEW-SIRIUS is the pooled analysis of the E-SIRIUS (n=352) and C-SIRIUS (n=100) studies, respectively, performed in Europe and Canada. Identical in design, these are multicenter randomized, double-blind trials examining the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) vs. an identical bare-metal stent (BMS) in 452 patients to treat de novo native long lesions in small coronary arteries, with adjunctive clopidogrel for only 2 months. Methods : The primary endpoint was in-stent minimum lumen diameter (MLD) at 8-month follow-up. Among the secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events(MACE) at 1, 6, 9 and 12 months, and annually up to 5 years post-procedure, as well as target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and protocol-defined stent thrombosis. Results : At 8 months, the MLD was 2.27±0.47mm in the SES vs. 1.36±0.66 mm in the BMS (p < 0.001). The binary in-lesion restenosis rate was 5.1% in the SES vs. 44.2% in the BMS (p < 0.001). At 4 years, there was a significantly lower incidence of MACE (SES: 15.1% vs BMS: 33.9%, p < 0.001), primarily driven by a significant difference in clinically-driven TLR rates (SES: 7.1% vs. BMS: 26.0%, p < 0.001). A subgroup analysis in diabetic patients (45 SES, 60 BMS) demonstrated that the in-stent MLD was larger in SES than in BMS (2.20±0.47 vs 1.14±0.64 mm, p < 0.001) and the binary in-lesion restenosis rate was reduced from 56.1% (BMS) to 10.0% (RRR: 82.2%, p < 0.001) at 8 months. At 4 years, the freedom from MACE in diabetic patients was 80.0% in the SES vs. 61.7% in the BMS (p = 0.031), again mainly driven by an improved freedom from clinically driven-TLR (SES: 90.8% vs. BMS: 66.9%, p=0.005), with no evidence of a late catch-up effect. Conclusion : Up to 4 years, SES were superior to BMS in the total cohort as well as in the diabetic subgroup without evidence of a late catch-up. Five-year follow-up data, including antiplatelet therapies utilization and a diabetic subgroup analyses will be available by July 2007 and presented.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".