Five‐Year Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus‐Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus‐Eluting Stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The choice of optimal drug‐eluting stent therapy for patients with diabetes mellitus ( DM ) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the long‐term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable polymer sirolimus‐eluting stents ( BP ‐ SES ) versus durable polymer everolimus‐eluting stents ( DP ‐ EES ) in patients with DM . Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus‐Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization) trial ( NCT 01443104), patients randomly assigned to ultrathin‐strut BP ‐ SES or thin‐strut DP ‐ EES were stratified according to diabetic status. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, at 5 years. Among 2119 patients, 486 (22.9%) presented with DM . Compared with individuals without DM, patients with DM were older and had a greater baseline cardiac risk profile. In patients with DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 74 patients (cumulative incidence, 31.0%) treated with BP ‐ SES and 57 patients (25.8%) treated with DP ‐ EES (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI , 0.87–1.73 [ P =0.24]). In individuals without DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 124 patients (16.8%) treated with BP ‐ SES and 132 patients (16.8%) treated with DP ‐ EES (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77–1.26 [ P =0.90; P for interaction=0.31]). Cumulative 5‐year incidence rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis were similar among patients with DM treated with BP ‐ SES or DP ‐ EES . There was no interaction between diabetic status and treatment effect of BP ‐ SES versus DP ‐ EES . Conclusions In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, we found no difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with DM treated with ultrathin‐strut BP ‐ SES or thin‐strut DP ‐ EES . Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT 01443104.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".