D-25 | Outcomes of Drug Eluting Stents in Comparison to Bare Metal Stents in Cancer Patients With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have demonstrated poor prognosis in cancer patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Cancer patients receiving PCI are at increased risk of stent thrombosis, bleeding, hospital readmissions, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality when compared to patient without cancer. It is unclear if the worse outcomes in cancer patients are related to the stent type utilized for PCI. We performed this meta-analysis to identify if there are any differences in efficacy and safety outcomes when comparing drug eluting stents (DES) with bare metal stents (BMS) in cancer patients. This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was stent thrombosis. Three studies comprising 9,785 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference in risk of stent thrombosis (odds ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.07), in-hospital mortality (RR 1.92; 95% CI 0.83-4.43), or bleeding events (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.77-2.49) when comparing cancer patients who underwent PCI with DES versus those who had PCI with BMS. This meta-analysis demonstrates that revascularization with BMS is not superior to DES in reducing stent thrombosis, in hospital mortality, or bleeding events in cancer patient who underwent PCI for ACS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.380 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".