Safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer everolimus‐eluting stent versus durable polymer drug‐eluting stents in high‐risk patients undergoing <scp>PCI</scp>: <scp>TWILIGHT‐SYNERGY</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Data examining the safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer (BP) drug‐eluting stent (DES) as compared with durable polymer (DP) DES in high‐risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain limited. Methods We conducted a pre‐specified analysis among patients enrolled in the TWILIGHT trial treated with the SYNERGY BP‐DES or a DP‐DES. Following successful PCI and 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year; DES choice was at physician discretion. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) [composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST)]. Results Among enrolled participants ( N = 9,006), 653 were treated exclusively with the SYNERGY BP‐DES and 6,404 with a comparator DP‐DES. Over 15 months, TLF rates were 6.4 and 6.1% among those receiving a SYNERGY BP‐DES and a DP‐DES, respectively (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64–1.35; p = .72). The effect of ticagrelor monotherapy on Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding and the composite of all‐cause death, MI or stroke was uniform across DES groups (both p int > .10). Conclusions The safety and efficacy profile of the SYNERGY BP‐DES is comparable to that of contemporary DP‐DES in high‐risk patients undergoing PCI. Compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin, the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy is consistent among patients receiving SYNERGY BP‐DES or DP‐DES.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".