Five-Year Outcomes With Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) have been shown to reduce target lesion failure (TLF) at one-year follow-up compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The long-term clinical benefits of thin-strut BP-SES over DP-EES in ACS patients after complete degradation of the polymer coating remain uncertain. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc subgroup analysis of ACS patients included into the BIOSCIENCE randomized trial (NCT01443104). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, at 5 years. RESULTS: Among 2119 patients enrolled between March 2012 and May 2013, 1131 (53%) presented with ACS. The 5-year cumulative incidence of TLF was significantly lower in patients with ACS compared to chronic coronary syndrome [16.5% vs. 22.9%; rate ratio (RR), 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57-0.85; p < 0.001]. At 5 years, TLF occurred similarly in ACS patients treated with BP-SES and DP-EES (16.9% vs. 16.0%; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.78-1.41; p = 0.78). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ between ACS patients treated with BP-SES or DP-EES at 5 years. Overall, there was no interaction between clinical presentation and treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: In a subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, we found no difference in long-term outcomes between ACS patients treated with BP-SES or DP-EES at 5 years.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".