Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stents farmacoactivos versus stents metálicos no revestidos para el síndrome coronario agudo

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012481.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 23 agosto 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Corazón

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Joshua Feinberg

    Correspondencia a: Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

    [email protected]

  • Emil Eik Nielsen

    Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Janette Greenhalgh

    Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

  • Juliet Hounsome

    Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

  • Naqash J Sethi

    Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Sanam Safi

    Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Christian Gluud

    Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Janus C Jakobsen

    Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Department of Cardiology, Holbaek Hospital, Holbaek, Denmark

Contributions of authors

Joshua Feinberg (JF): drafted the protocol, extracted data, co‐ordinated the review, conceived the review, designed the review, interpreted the data by providing a methodological view, and revised the review.

Emil Eik Nielsen (EEN): drafted the protocol, extracted data, drafted the review, interpreted the data by providing a methodological view, and revised the review.

Janette Greenhalgh (JG) commented on the review.

Juliet Hounsome (JH) commented on the review.

Naqash J Sethi (NJS): commented on the review.

Sanam Safi (SS): commented on the review.

Christian Gluud (CG): revised the protocol, interpreted the data by providing a methodological and clinical view, and commented on and revised the review.

Janus C Jakobsen (JCJ): revised the protocol, analysed the data, interpreted the data by providing a methodological and clinical view, and commented on and revised the review.

All authors agreed on the final version.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support provided

External sources

  • The Cochrane Heart Group US Satellite is supported by intramural support from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science (NUCATS) Institute (UL1TR000150), USA

  • This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Heart Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, National Health Service (NHS), or the Department of Health, UK

Declarations of interest

The performance of this review is free of any real or perceived bias introduced by receipt of any benefit in cash or kind, on any subsidy derived from any source that may have or be perceived to have an interest in the outcomes of this review.

Joshua Feinberg (JF): no conflict of interest.

Emil Eik Nielsen (EEN): no conflict of interest.

Janette Greenhalgh (JG): no conflict of interest.

Juliet Hounsome (JH): no conflict of interest.

Naqash J Sethi (NS): no conflict of interest.

Sanam Safi (SS): no conflict of interest.

Christian Gluud (CG): member of the Copenhagen Trial Unit task force for developing Trial Sequential Analysis methods, manuals, and software.

Janus C Jakobsen (JCJ): no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Rumona Dickson for her work on the protocol and the previous version of the review.

We thank Jørn Wetterslev for his work on the protocol.

We thank Cochrane Heart for the provision of a template for this protocol.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Aug 23

Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

Review

Joshua Feinberg, Emil Eik Nielsen, Janette Greenhalgh, Juliet Hounsome, Naqash J Sethi, Sanam Safi, Christian Gluud, Janus C Jakobsen

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012481.pub2

2016 Dec 19

Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

Protocol

Joshua Feinberg, Emil Eik Nielsen, Janette Greenhalgh, Juliet Hounsome, Naqash J Sethi, Sanam Safi, Christian Gluud, Janus C Jakobsen

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012481

Differences between protocol and review

We did not present a table describing the serious adverse events in each trial. The only serious adverse events reported were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation, and these were already reported in our other outcome analyses.

We renamed the time point 'time point at three months or less' to 'one month', as all included trials for this outcome reported at one month. If in the future we find trials reporting at any time point other than one month that also report at three months or less, we will change the name back.

In analyses where our visual inspection showed signs of asymmetry, we used the 'trim and fill' method to assess the potential effect of publication bias.

We changed the diversity‐adjusted required information size for secondary outcomes from 10% to 20% (it was a typo in the original protocol).

We added anticipated intervention effects for the secondary outcomes in the Trial Sequential Analysis.

We added an estimate of the diversity‐adjusted required information size for the exploratory outcomes.

We added that a P value less than 2.5% would be considered as significant for the secondary outcomes.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

study flow diagram.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on all‐cause mortality at maximum follow‐up in 21 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on mortality in the control group of 7.76%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 10% in the experimental group; type I error of 2.0%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 45,046 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit or harm (red inward‐sloping lines). The cumulative Z‐curve did not cross the inner‐wedge futility line (the inner‐wedge futility could not be calculated due to too little information). Additionally, the cumulative Z‐score did not cross the RIS. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (2.0%).

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on all‐cause mortality at maximum follow‐up in 21 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on mortality in the control group of 7.76%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 10% in the experimental group; type I error of 2.0%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 45,046 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit or harm (red inward‐sloping lines). The cumulative Z‐curve did not cross the inner‐wedge futility line (the inner‐wedge futility could not be calculated due to too little information). Additionally, the cumulative Z‐score did not cross the RIS. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (2.0%).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on serious adverse events at maximum follow‐up in 22 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on a rate of serious adverse events in the control group of 22.95%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 10% in the experimental group; type I error of 2.0%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 24,853 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (2.0%).

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on serious adverse events at maximum follow‐up in 22 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on a rate of serious adverse events in the control group of 22.95%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 10% in the experimental group; type I error of 2.0%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 24,853 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (2.0%).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on target vessel revascularisation at maximum follow‐up in 22 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on a rate of target vessel revascularisations in the control group of 13.28%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 30% in the experimental group; type I error of 3.33%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 5361 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (3.33%).

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Trial Sequential Analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents on target vessel revascularisation at maximum follow‐up in 22 trials. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (RIS) was calculated based on a rate of target vessel revascularisations in the control group of 13.28%; risk ratio reduction (RRR) of 30% in the experimental group; type I error of 3.33%; and type II error of 20% (80% power). No diversity was noted. The diversity‐adjusted required information size was 5361 participants. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit. The green dotted line shows conventional boundaries (3.33%).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 1: All‐cause mortality

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 1: All‐cause mortality

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 2: All‐cause mortality best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 2: All‐cause mortality best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 3: All‐cause mortality worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 3: All‐cause mortality worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 4: All‐cause mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 4: All‐cause mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 5: All‐cause mortality according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 5: All‐cause mortality according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 6: All‐cause mortality according to length of maximum follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 6: All‐cause mortality according to length of maximum follow‐up

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 7: All‐cause mortality according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 7: All‐cause mortality according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 8: Serious adverse events

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 8: Serious adverse events

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 9: Serious adverse events best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 9: Serious adverse events best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 10: Serious adverse events worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 10: Serious adverse events worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 11: Serious adverse events according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 11: Serious adverse events according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 12: Serious adverse events according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 12: Serious adverse events according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 13: Serious adverse events according to length of maximum follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 13: Serious adverse events according to length of maximum follow‐up

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 14: Serious adverse events according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 14: Serious adverse events according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 15: Major cardiovascular events

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 15: Major cardiovascular events

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 16: Major cardiovascular events best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 16: Major cardiovascular events best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 17: Major cardiovascular events worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 17: Major cardiovascular events worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 18: Major cardiovascular events according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 18: Major cardiovascular events according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 19: Major cardiovascular events according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 19: Major cardiovascular events according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 20: Major cardiovascular events according to length of maximum follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 20: Major cardiovascular events according to length of maximum follow‐up

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 21: Major cardiovascular events according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 21: Major cardiovascular events according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 22: Cardiovascular mortality

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 22: Cardiovascular mortality

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 23: Cardiovascular mortality best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 23: Cardiovascular mortality best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 24: Cardiovascular mortality worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 24: Cardiovascular mortality worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 25: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 25: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 26: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 26: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 27: Cardiovascular mortality according to length of maximum follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 27: Cardiovascular mortality according to length of maximum follow‐up

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 28: Cardiovascular mortality according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 28: Cardiovascular mortality according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 29: Myocardial infarction

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.29

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 29: Myocardial infarction

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 30: Myocardial infarction best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.30

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 30: Myocardial infarction best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 31: Myocardial infarction worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.31

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 31: Myocardial infarction worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 32: Myocardial infarction according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.32

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 32: Myocardial infarction according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 33: Myocardial infarction according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.33

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 33: Myocardial infarction according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 34: Myocardial infarction according to length of maximum follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.34

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 34: Myocardial infarction according to length of maximum follow‐up

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 35: Myocardial infarction according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.35

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 35: Myocardial infarction according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 36: Stent thrombosis

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.36

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 36: Stent thrombosis

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 37: Stent thrombosis best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.37

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 37: Stent thrombosis best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 38: Stent thrombosis worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.38

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 38: Stent thrombosis worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 39: Stent thrombosis according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.39

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 39: Stent thrombosis according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 40: Stent thrombosis according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.40

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 40: Stent thrombosis according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 41: Stent thrombosis according to length of maximum follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.41

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 41: Stent thrombosis according to length of maximum follow‐up

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 42: Stent thrombosis according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.42

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 42: Stent thrombosis according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 43: Target vessel revascularisation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.43

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 43: Target vessel revascularisation

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 44: Target vessel revascularisation best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.44

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 44: Target vessel revascularisation best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 45: Target vessel revascularisation worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.45

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 45: Target vessel revascularisation worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 46: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.46

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 46: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 47: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.47

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 47: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 48: Target vessel revascularisation according to length of maximum follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.48

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 48: Target vessel revascularisation according to length of maximum follow‐up

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 49: Target vessel revascularisation according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.49

Comparison 1: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up, Outcome 49: Target vessel revascularisation according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 1: All‐cause mortality

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 1: All‐cause mortality

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 2: All‐cause mortality best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 2: All‐cause mortality best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 3: All‐cause mortality worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 3: All‐cause mortality worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 4: All‐cause mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 4: All‐cause mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 5: All‐cause mortality according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 5: All‐cause mortality according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 6: All‐cause mortality according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 6: All‐cause mortality according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 7: Serious adverse events

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 7: Serious adverse events

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 8: Serious adverse events best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 8: Serious adverse events best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 9: Serious adverse events worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 9: Serious adverse events worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 10: Serious adverse events according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 10: Serious adverse events according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 11: Serious adverse events according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 11: Serious adverse events according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 12: Serious adverse events according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 12: Serious adverse events according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 13: Major cardiovascular events

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 13: Major cardiovascular events

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 14: Major cardiovascular events best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 14: Major cardiovascular events best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 15: Major cardiovascular events worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 15: Major cardiovascular events worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 16: Major cardiovascular events according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 16: Major cardiovascular events according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 17: Major cardiovascular events according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.17

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 17: Major cardiovascular events according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 18: Major cardiovascular events according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.18

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 18: Major cardiovascular events according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 19: Cardiovascular mortality

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.19

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 19: Cardiovascular mortality

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 20: Cardiovascular mortality best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.20

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 20: Cardiovascular mortality best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 21: Cardiovascular mortality worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.21

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 21: Cardiovascular mortality worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 22: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.22

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 22: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 23: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.23

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 23: Cardiovascular mortality according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 24: Cardiovascular mortality according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.24

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 24: Cardiovascular mortality according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 25: Myocardial infarction

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.25

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 25: Myocardial infarction

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 26: Myocardial infarction best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.26

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 26: Myocardial infarction best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 27: Myocardial infarction worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.27

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 27: Myocardial infarction worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 28: Myocardial infarction according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.28

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 28: Myocardial infarction according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 29: Myocardial infarction according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.29

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 29: Myocardial infarction according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 30: Myocardial infarction according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.30

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 30: Myocardial infarction according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 31: Stent thrombosis

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.31

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 31: Stent thrombosis

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 32: Stent thrombosis best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.32

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 32: Stent thrombosis best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 33: Stent thrombosis worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.33

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 33: Stent thrombosis worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 34: Stent thrombosis according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.34

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 34: Stent thrombosis according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 35: Stent thrombosis according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.35

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 35: Stent thrombosis according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 36: Stent thrombosis according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.36

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 36: Stent thrombosis according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 37: Target vessel revascularisation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.37

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 37: Target vessel revascularisation

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 38: Target vessel revascularisation best‐worst

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.38

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 38: Target vessel revascularisation best‐worst

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 39: Target vessel revascularisation worst‐best

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.39

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 39: Target vessel revascularisation worst‐best

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 40: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.40

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 40: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of drug‐eluting stent

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 41: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of ACS

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.41

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 41: Target vessel revascularisation according to type of ACS

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 42: Target vessel revascularisation according to registration status

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.42

Comparison 2: Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month, Outcome 42: Target vessel revascularisation according to registration status

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings 1. Drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

Drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

Patient or population: People with acute coronary syndrome
Setting: Hospital
Intervention: Drug‐eluting stents
Comparison: Bare‐metal stents

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with bare‐metal stents

Risk with drug‐eluting stents

All‐cause mortality at maximum follow‐up
Follow‐up: median 12 months

Study population

RR 0.90
(0.78 to 1.03)

11,250
(21 RCTs/22 comparisons)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1,2

Trial Sequential Analysis for a RRR of 10% showed that neither the boundary for futility, benefit or harm was breached, hence the risk of imprecision of the outcome result is high. Multiple eligible treatments were used in 1 trial, generating a further comparison (21 trials reporting on 22 experimental groups).

78 per 1000

70 per 1000
(60 to 80)

Serious adverse events at maximum follow‐up
Follow‐up: median 12 months

Study population

RR 0.80
(0.74 to 0.86)

11,724
(22 RCTs/23 comparisons)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 3

Trial Sequential Analysis for a RRR of 10% showed that the boundary for benefit was breached, hence the risk of imprecision of the outcome result is low. Multiple eligible treatments were used in 1 trial, generating a further comparison (22 trials reporting on 23 experimental groups).

230 per 1000

184 per 1000
(170 to 197)

Major cardiovascular events at maximum
follow‐up

Follow‐up: median 12 months

Study population

RR 0.96
(0.83 to 1.11)

10,939
(19 RCTs/20 comparisons)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1,3

Trial Sequential Analysis for a RRR of 10% showed that neither the boundary for futility, benefit or harm was breached, hence the risk of imprecision of the outcome result is high. Multiple eligible treatments were used in 1 trial, generating a further comparison (19 trials reporting on 20 experimental groups).

66 per 1000

63 per 1000
(55 to 73)

Quality of life at maximum follow‐up ‐ not reported

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Cardiovascular mortality at maximum follow‐up
Follow‐up: median 12 months

Study population

RR 0.91
(0.76 to 1.09)

9248
(14 RCTs/15 comparisons)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1,3

Trial Sequential Analysis for a RRR of 10% showed that neither the boundary for futility, benefit or harm was breached, hence the risk of imprecision of the outcome result is high. Multiple eligible treatments were used in 1 trial, generating a further comparison (14 trials reporting on 15 experimental groups).

58 per 1000

53 per 1000
(44 to 63)

Myocardial infarction at maximum follow‐up
Follow‐up: median 12 months

Study population

RR 0.98
(0.82 to 1.18)

10,217
(18 RCTs/19 comparisons)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1,3

Trial Sequential Analysis for a RRR of 10% showed that neither the boundary for futility, benefit or harm was breached, hence the risk of imprecision of the outcome result is high. Multiple eligible treatments were used in 1 trial, generating a further comparison (18 trials reporting on 19 experimental groups).

48 per 1000

47 per 1000
(39 to 56)

Angina at maximum follow‐up ‐ not reported

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; RRR: risk ratio reduction

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded one level for serious risk of imprecision due to our required information size not being met.
2Downgraded one level for serious risk of bias due to all trials being at high risk of bias, but as mortality is a more objective outcome, lack of blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors may not bias the outcome as much.
3Downgraded two levels for very serious risk of bias due to all trials being at high risk of bias.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. Drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 All‐cause mortality Show forest plot

22

11250

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.78, 1.03]

1.2 All‐cause mortality best‐worst Show forest plot

22

11775

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.44, 0.80]

1.3 All‐cause mortality worst‐best Show forest plot

22

11775

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.99, 1.64]

1.4 All‐cause mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

22

11250

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.78, 1.03]

1.4.1 Biodegradable (Biolimus)

1

1157

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.54, 1.45]

1.4.2 Everolimus

1

1458

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.54, 1.00]

1.4.3 Paclitaxel

8

4468

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.71, 1.12]

1.4.4 Sirolimus

9

3113

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.68, 1.16]

1.4.5 Zotarolimus

1

44

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.4.6 Mixed

1

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.34 [0.91, 1.98]

1.4.7 Unclear

1

384

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.02, 7.39]

1.5 All‐cause mortality according to type of ACS Show forest plot

22

11250

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.78, 1.03]

1.5.1 STEMI

21

11171

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.78, 1.03]

1.5.2 Acute coronary syndrome

1

79

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.6 All‐cause mortality according to length of maximum follow‐up Show forest plot

22

11250

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.78, 1.03]

1.6.1 Less or equal to 6 months

4

726

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.29, 2.53]

1.6.2 Between 6 and 12 months

6

1315

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.54, 1.21]

1.6.3 Between 1 and 3 years

3

703

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.55, 1.76]

1.6.4 More or equal to 3 years

8

8490

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.77, 1.05]

1.6.5 Unclear

1

16

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.7 All‐cause mortality according to registration status Show forest plot

22

11250

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.78, 1.03]

1.7.1 Pre‐registration

3

1301

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.52, 1.39]

1.7.2 Post‐registration

13

9028

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.77, 1.03]

1.7.3 No registration

6

921

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.54, 2.20]

1.8 Serious adverse events Show forest plot

23

11724

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.74, 0.86]

1.9 Serious adverse events best‐worst Show forest plot

23

12249

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.62, 0.71]

1.10 Serious adverse events worst‐best Show forest plot

23

12249

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.91, 1.05]

1.11 Serious adverse events according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

23

11724

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.74, 0.86]

1.11.1 Biodegradable (Biolimus)

1

1157

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.58, 0.98]

1.11.2 Everolimus

2

1932

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.69, 0.97]

1.11.3 Paclitaxel

8

4468

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.76, 0.96]

1.11.4 Sirolimus

9

3113

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.64, 0.84]

1.11.5 Zotarolimus

1

44

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.17, 10.70]

1.11.6 Mixed

1

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.54, 1.01]

1.11.7 Unclear

1

384

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.52, 1.69]

1.12 Serious adverse events according to type of ACS Show forest plot

23

11724

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.74, 0.86]

1.12.1 STEMI

21

11171

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.75, 0.86]

1.12.2 Acute coronary syndrome

1

79

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.29, 1.15]

1.12.3 NSTEMI

1

474

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.50, 1.23]

1.13 Serious adverse events according to length of maximum follow‐up Show forest plot

23

11724

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.74, 0.86]

1.13.1 Less or equal to 6 months

4

726

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.45, 0.99]

1.13.2 Between 6 and 12 months

7

1748

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.69, 1.05]

1.13.3 Between 1 and 3 years

3

744

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.47, 0.88]

1.13.4 More or equal to 3 years

8

8490

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.75, 0.88]

1.13.5 Unclear

1

16

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.14 Serious adverse events according to registration status Show forest plot

23

11724

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.74, 0.86]

1.14.1 Pre‐registration

3

1301

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.55, 0.91]

1.14.2 Post‐registration

14

9502

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.75, 0.87]

1.14.3 No registration

6

921

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.57, 1.20]

1.15 Major cardiovascular events Show forest plot

20

10939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.83, 1.11]

1.16 Major cardiovascular events best‐worst Show forest plot

20

11596

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.39, 0.72]

1.17 Major cardiovascular events worst‐best Show forest plot

20

11596

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.97, 2.00]

1.18 Major cardiovascular events according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

20

10939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.83, 1.11]

1.18.1 Biodegradable (Biolimus)

1

1104

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.54, 1.49]

1.18.2 Everolimus

1

1458

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.58, 1.24]

1.18.3 Paclitaxel

7

4305

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.81, 1.26]

1.18.4 Sirolimus

8

3018

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.64, 1.24]

1.18.5 Zotarolimus

1

44

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.18.6 Mixed

1

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.60, 1.81]

1.18.7 Unclear

1

384

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.54, 3.40]

1.19 Major cardiovascular events according to type of ACS Show forest plot

20

10939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.83, 1.11]

1.19.1 STEMI

19

10860

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.83, 1.12]

1.19.2 Acute coronary syndrome

1

79

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.12, 3.87]

1.20 Major cardiovascular events according to length of maximum follow‐up Show forest plot

20

10939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.83, 1.11]

1.20.1 Less or equal to 6 months

3

563

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.48, 2.28]

1.20.2 Between 1 and 3 years

9

2018

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.69, 1.16]

1.20.3 More or equal to 3 years

8

8358

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.82, 1.19]

1.21 Major cardiovascular events according to registration status Show forest plot

20

10939

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.83, 1.11]

1.21.1 Pre‐registration

3

1248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.52, 1.42]

1.21.2 Post‐registration

13

8949

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.83, 1.14]

1.21.3 No registration

4

742

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.47, 1.93]

1.22 Cardiovascular mortality Show forest plot

15

9248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.76, 1.09]

1.23 Cardiovascular mortality best‐worst Show forest plot

15

9742

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.32, 0.77]

1.24 Cardiovascular mortality worst‐best Show forest plot

15

9742

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.49 [1.06, 2.11]

1.25 Cardiovascular mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

15

9248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.76, 1.09]

1.25.1 Biodegradable (Biolimus)

1

1104

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.54, 1.49]

1.25.2 Everolimus

1

1458

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.58, 1.24]

1.25.3 Paclitaxel

6

4141

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.65, 1.13]

1.25.4 Sirolimus

5

1875

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.52, 1.25]

1.25.5 Zotarolimus

1

44

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.25.6 Mixed

1

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.40 [1.17, 4.93]

1.26 Cardiovascular mortality according to type of ACS Show forest plot

15

9248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.76, 1.09]

1.26.1 STEMI

15

9248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.76, 1.09]

1.26.2 Acute coronary syndrome

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.27 Cardiovascular mortality according to length of maximum follow‐up Show forest plot

15

9248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.76, 1.09]

1.27.1 Less or equal to 6 months

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.01, 4.23]

1.27.2 Between 6 and 12 months

6

1584

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.65, 1.35]

1.27.3 Between 1 and 3 years

2

270

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.23, 1.32]

1.27.4 More or equal to 3 years

6

7294

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.72, 1.27]

1.28 Cardiovascular mortality according to registration status Show forest plot

15

9248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.76, 1.09]

1.28.1 Pre‐registration

3

1248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.52, 1.42]

1.28.2 Post‐registration

10

7806

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.73, 1.18]

1.28.3 No registration

2

194

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.16, 3.16]

1.29 Myocardial infarction Show forest plot

19

10217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.82, 1.18]

1.30 Myocardial infarction best‐worst Show forest plot

19

10851

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.33, 0.66]

1.31 Myocardial infarction worst‐best Show forest plot

19

10851

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.56 [1.00, 2.45]

1.32 Myocardial infarction according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

19

10217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.82, 1.18]

1.32.1 Biodegradable (Biolimus)

1

1118

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.36, 1.15]

1.32.2 Everolimus

1

1458

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.79, 2.11]

1.32.3 Paclitaxel

7

4305

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.75, 1.46]

1.32.4 Sirolimus

7

2282

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.58, 1.39]

1.32.5 Zotarolimus

1

44

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.32.6 Mixed

1

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.40, 1.36]

1.32.7 Unclear

1

384

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.54, 3.40]

1.33 Myocardial infarction according to type of ACS Show forest plot

19

10217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.82, 1.18]

1.33.1 STEMI

18

10138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.82, 1.18]

1.33.2 Acute coronary syndrome

1

79

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.12, 3.87]

1.34 Myocardial infarction according to length of maximum follow‐up Show forest plot

19

10217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.82, 1.18]

1.34.1 Less or equal to 6 months

3

563

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.52, 2.63]

1.34.2 Between 6 and 12 months

7

1748

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.58, 1.66]

1.34.3 Between 1 and 3 years

2

270

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.24, 1.25]

1.34.4 More or equal to 3 years

7

7636

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.80, 1.25]

1.35 Myocardial infarction according to registration status Show forest plot

19

10217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.82, 1.18]

1.35.1 Pre‐registration

3

1262

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.36, 1.15]

1.35.2 Post‐registration

12

8213

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.85, 1.26]

1.35.3 No registration

4

742

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.44, 2.12]

1.36 Stent thrombosis Show forest plot

21

11350

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.80, 1.16]

1.37 Stent thrombosis best‐worst Show forest plot

21

12007

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.32, 0.67]

1.38 Stent thrombosis worst‐best Show forest plot

21

12007

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.55 [1.12, 2.15]

1.39 Stent thrombosis according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

21

11350

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.80, 1.16]

1.39.1 Biodegradable (Biolimus)

1

1104

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.40, 1.30]

1.39.2 Everolimus

2

1932

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.34, 1.08]

1.39.3 Paclitaxel

7

4305

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.73, 1.39]

1.39.4 Sirolimus

8

2957

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.76, 1.41]

1.39.5 Zotarolimus

1

44

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.39.6 Mixed

1

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.52, 1.92]

1.39.7 Unclear

1

382

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.16 [0.82, 5.70]

1.40 Stent thrombosis according to type of ACS Show forest plot

21

11350

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.80, 1.16]

1.40.1 STEMI

20

10876

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.81, 1.18]

1.40.2 NSTEMI

1

474

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.12, 1.68]

1.41 Stent thrombosis according to length of maximum follow‐up Show forest plot

21

11350

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.80, 1.16]

1.41.1 Less or equal to 6 months

2

482

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.16 [0.82, 5.70]

1.41.2 Between 6 and 12 months

7

1748

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.46, 1.49]

1.41.3 Between 1 and 3 years

3

744

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.25, 1.29]

1.41.4 More or equal to 3 years

8

8360

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.78, 1.22]

1.41.5 Unclear

1

16

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.01, 3.61]

1.42 Stent thrombosis according to registration status Show forest plot

21

11350

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.80, 1.16]

1.42.1 Pre‐registration

3

1248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.40, 1.30]

1.42.2 Post‐registration

13

9346

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.81, 1.21]

1.42.3 No registration

5

756

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.22, 2.20]

1.43 Target vessel revascularisation Show forest plot

23

11770

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.52, 0.65]

1.44 Target vessel revascularisation best‐worst Show forest plot

23

12368

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.37, 0.45]

1.45 Target vessel revascularisation worst‐best Show forest plot

23

12368

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.89, 1.07]

1.46 Target vessel revascularisation according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

23

11770

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.52, 0.65]

1.46.1 Biodegradable (Biolimus)

1

1118

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.29, 0.70]

1.46.2 Everolimus

2

1932

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.42, 0.78]

1.46.3 Sirolimus

9

3062

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.44, 0.66]

1.46.4 Paclitaxel

8

4530

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.53, 0.75]

1.46.5 Mixed

1

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.35, 0.76]

1.46.6 Unclear

1

382

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.16 [0.82, 5.70]

1.46.7 Dexamethasone

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.32, 1.12]

1.47 Target vessel revascularisation according to type of ACS Show forest plot

23

11770

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.52, 0.65]

1.47.1 STEMI

20

11097

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.53, 0.66]

1.47.2 Acute coronary syndrome

2

199

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.27, 0.86]

1.47.3 NSTEMI

1

474

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.18, 0.77]

1.48 Target vessel revascularisation according to length of maximum follow‐up Show forest plot

23

11770

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.52, 0.65]

1.48.1 Less or equal to 6 months

4

724

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.25, 0.84]

1.48.2 Between 6 and 12 months

8

1930

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.43, 0.78]

1.48.3 Between 1 and 3 years

3

744

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.19, 0.56]

1.48.4 More or equal to 3 years

8

8372

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.54, 0.69]

1.48.5 Unclear

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.49 Target vessel revascularisation according to registration status Show forest plot

23

11770

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.52, 0.65]

1.49.1 Pre‐registration

3

1262

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.28, 0.65]

1.49.2 Post‐registration

14

9425

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.53, 0.67]

1.49.3 No registration

6

1083

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.38, 0.82]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at maximum follow‐up
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 All‐cause mortality Show forest plot

6

3213

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.49, 1.22]

2.2 All‐cause mortality best‐worst Show forest plot

6

3231

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.40, 0.95]

2.3 All‐cause mortality worst‐best Show forest plot

6

3231

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.60, 1.43]

2.4 All‐cause mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

6

3213

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.49, 1.22]

2.4.1 Everolimus

1

1498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.36, 1.71]

2.4.2 Paclitaxel

3

857

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.42, 1.64]

2.4.3 Sirolimus

2

858

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.26, 1.78]

2.5 All‐cause mortality according to type of ACS Show forest plot

6

3213

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.49, 1.22]

2.5.1 STEMI

6

3213

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.49, 1.22]

2.6 All‐cause mortality according to registration status Show forest plot

6

3213

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.49, 1.22]

2.6.1 Post‐registration

3

2856

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.41, 1.14]

2.6.2 No registration

3

357

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.47, 3.47]

2.7 Serious adverse events Show forest plot

7

3313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.45, 0.93]

2.8 Serious adverse events best‐worst Show forest plot

7

3331

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.40, 0.80]

2.9 Serious adverse events worst‐best Show forest plot

7

3331

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.52, 1.03]

2.10 Serious adverse events according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

7

3313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.45, 0.93]

2.10.1 Everolimus

1

1498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.30, 0.98]

2.10.2 Paclitaxel

4

957

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.41, 1.46]

2.10.3 Sirolimus

2

858

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.35, 1.28]

2.11 Serious adverse events according to type of ACS Show forest plot

7

3313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.45, 0.93]

2.11.1 STEMI

7

3313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.45, 0.93]

2.12 Serious adverse events according to registration status Show forest plot

7

3313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.45, 0.93]

2.12.1 Pre‐registration

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.01, 8.31]

2.12.2 Post‐registration

3

2856

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.41, 0.88]

2.12.3 No registration

3

357

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.43, 2.76]

2.13 Major cardiovascular events Show forest plot

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.43, 1.08]

2.14 Major cardiovascular events best‐worst Show forest plot

6

3168

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.35, 0.84]

2.15 Major cardiovascular events worst‐best Show forest plot

6

3168

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.53, 1.27]

2.16 Major cardiovascular events according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.43, 1.08]

2.16.1 Everolimus

1

1498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.36, 1.71]

2.16.2 Paclitaxel

3

794

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.32, 1.37]

2.16.3 Sirolimus

2

858

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.25, 1.45]

2.17 Major cardiovascular events according to type of ACS Show forest plot

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.43, 1.08]

2.17.1 STEMI

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.43, 1.08]

2.18 Major cardiovascular events according to registration status Show forest plot

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.43, 1.08]

2.18.1 Pre‐registration

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.01, 8.31]

2.18.2 Post‐registration

3

2856

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.41, 1.09]

2.18.3 No registration

2

194

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.24, 3.58]

2.19 Cardiovascular mortality Show forest plot

5

2406

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.43, 1.25]

2.20 Cardiovascular mortality best‐worst Show forest plot

5

2423

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.32, 0.88]

2.21 Cardiovascular mortality worst‐best Show forest plot

5

2423

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.54, 1.50]

2.22 Cardiovascular mortality according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

5

2406

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.43, 1.25]

2.22.1 Everolimus

1

1498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.36, 1.71]

2.22.2 Paclitaxel

3

794

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.30, 1.46]

2.22.3 Sirolimus

1

114

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.13, 6.17]

2.23 Cardiovascular mortality according to type of ACS Show forest plot

5

2406

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.43, 1.25]

2.23.1 STEMI

5

2406

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.43, 1.25]

2.24 Cardiovascular mortality according to registration status Show forest plot

5

2406

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.43, 1.25]

2.24.1 Pre‐registration

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.01, 8.31]

2.24.2 Post‐registration

2

2112

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.39, 1.25]

2.24.3 No registration

2

194

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.27, 6.38]

2.25 Myocardial infarction Show forest plot

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.26, 0.98]

2.26 Myocardial infarction best‐worst Show forest plot

6

3168

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.20, 0.68]

2.27 Myocardial infarction worst‐best Show forest plot

6

3168

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.41, 1.32]

2.28 Myocardial infarction according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.26, 0.98]

2.28.1 Everolimus

1

1498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.19, 1.64]

2.28.2 Paclitaxel

3

794

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.63]

2.28.3 Sirolimus

2

858

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.20, 1.46]

2.29 Myocardial infarction according to type of ACS Show forest plot

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.26, 0.98]

2.29.1 STEMI

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.26, 0.98]

2.30 Myocardial infarction according to registration status Show forest plot

6

3150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.26, 0.98]

2.30.1 Pre‐registration

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.30.2 Post‐registration

3

2856

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.25, 1.00]

2.30.3 No registration

2

194

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.07, 4.69]

2.31 Stent thrombosis Show forest plot

5

3070

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.26, 0.90]

2.32 Stent thrombosis best‐worst Show forest plot

5

3088

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.20, 0.65]

2.33 Stent thrombosis worst‐best Show forest plot

5

3088

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.39, 1.18]

2.34 Stent thrombosis according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

5

3070

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.26, 0.90]

2.34.1 Everolimus

1

1498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.15, 0.95]

2.34.2 Paclitaxel

2

714

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.11, 3.94]

2.34.3 Sirolimus

2

858

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.23, 1.46]

2.35 Stent thrombosis according to type of ACS Show forest plot

5

3070

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.26, 0.90]

2.35.1 STEMI

5

3070

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.26, 0.90]

2.36 Stent thrombosis according to registration status Show forest plot

5

3070

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.26, 0.90]

2.36.1 Pre‐registration

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.36.2 Post‐registration

3

2856

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.25, 0.88]

2.36.3 No registration

1

114

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.06, 14.04]

2.37 Target vessel revascularisation Show forest plot

6

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.31, 0.82]

2.38 Target vessel revascularisation best‐worst Show forest plot

6

3251

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.26, 0.66]

2.39 Target vessel revascularisation worst‐best Show forest plot

6

3251

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.40, 0.98]

2.40 Target vessel revascularisation according to type of drug‐eluting stent Show forest plot

6

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.31, 0.82]

2.40.1 Everolimus

1

1498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.17, 0.76]

2.40.2 Paclitaxel

3

877

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.18, 1.49]

2.40.3 Sirolimus

2

858

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.29, 2.04]

2.41 Target vessel revascularisation according to type of ACS Show forest plot

6

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.31, 0.82]

2.41.1 STEMI

6

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.31, 0.82]

2.42 Target vessel revascularisation according to registration status Show forest plot

6

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.31, 0.82]

2.42.1 Pre‐registration

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.42.2 Post‐registration

3

2856

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.32, 0.90]

2.42.3 No registration

2

277

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.29]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome at one month
Ir a la tabla de la revisión