Clinical Outcomes Following Implantation of Thin-Strut, Bioabsorbable Polymer-Coated, Everolimus-Eluting SYNERGY Stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The thin-strut SYNERGY stent has an abluminal everolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer coating designed to facilitate vascular healing and reduce risk of stent thrombosis. In the multicenter, randomized EVOLVE II trial (The EVOLVE II Clinical Trial to Assess the SYNERGY Stent System for the Treatment of Atherosclerotic Lesion[s]), SYNERGY was noninferior to the durable polymer PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent for the primary end point of 1-year target lesion failure. Longer-term clinical follow-up will support the relative efficacy and safety of SYNERGY. METHODS: Patients with ≤3 native coronary lesions (reference vessel diameter ≥2.25-≤4.00 mm; length ≤34 mm) in ≤2 major epicardial vessels were randomized 1:1 to SYNERGY (N=838) or PROMUS Element Plus (N=846). EVOLVE II included a Diabetes substudy which pooled patients with diabetes mellitus from the randomized controlled trial (n=263) and from a sequential, single-arm substudy (N=203). RESULTS: The 5-year target lesion failure rate was 14.3% for SYNERGY and 14.2% for PROMUS Element Plus (P=0.91). Landmark analysis demonstrated similar rates of target lesion failure from discharge to 1-year (P=0.90) and from 1 to 5 years (P=0.94). Definite/probable stent thrombosis was infrequent in both arms (SYNERGY 0.7% versus PROMUS Element Plus 0.9%; P=0.75). There were no significant differences in the rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Among patients with diabetes mellitus, the target lesion failure rate to 1-year was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and to 5 years was 17.0%. CONCLUSIONS: SYNERGY demonstrated comparable outcomes to PROMUS Element Plus, with low rates of stent thrombosis and adverse events through 5 years of follow-up. Five-year clinical outcomes were favorable in patients with diabetes mellitus. These data support the long-term safety and effectiveness of SYNERGY in a broad range of patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01665053.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".