Ten‐Year Clinical Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Durable Polymer New‐Generation Drug‐Eluting Stent in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease With and Without Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Extended long‐term follow‐up data of new‐generation drug‐eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus is scant. The aim of this study is to assess the 10‐year clinical outcome of new‐generation biodegradable polymer‐based sirolimus‐eluting stents (Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer‐based everolimus‐eluting stents (XIENCE) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis, outcomes of patients with or without diabetes mellitus treated with drug‐eluting stents were compared. The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The analysis includes a total of 1951 patients (560 patients with and 1391 patients without diabetes mellitus) randomized to treatment with Yukon Choice PC (n=1299) or Xience (n=652). Regarding the primary end point, at 10 years patients with diabetes mellitus showed significantly higher major adverse cardiac event rates than patients without diabetes mellitus ( P <0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.22–1.63). There was no significant difference between patients treated with Yukon Choice PC versus Xience, neither in the subgroup of patients with ( P =0.91; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79–1.30) nor without diabetes mellitus ( P =0.50; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79–1.21). Rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis were 2.3% in patients with and 1.9% in patients without diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.34–2.60; P =0.52), without significant differences between study devices. Conclusions The clinical outcome of patients with diabetes after percutaneous coronary intervention with different new‐generation drug‐eluting stents is considerably worse than that of patients without diabetes mellitus, with event rates constantly increasing out to 10 years. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT00598676.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Ten-year clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents in a randomized trial subgroup analysis.
It compares long-term clinical outcomes of coronary stents.
Ten-year clinical stent outcomes in CAD with/without diabetes is clinical evaluation, not research-as-object.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".