Supplemental Table 1



APPENDIX

Online Table 1. Randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis

| |Study |Stent comparators |

|1 |BASKET PROVE (1), 2010 |CoCr-EES vs SES vs BMS |

|2 |CIBELES (2), 2013 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|3 |COMFORTABLE AMI (3), 2012 |BP-BES vs BMS |

|4 |COMPARE (4), 2010 |CoCr-EES vs PES |

|5 |COMPARE II (5), 2013 |CoCr-EES vs BP-BES |

|6 |DEBATER (6), 2012 |SES vs BMS |

|7 |DES-DIABETES (7), 2008 |SES vs PES |

|8 |DESSERT (8), 2008 |SES vs BMS |

|9 |DIABEDES (9), 2009 |SES vs PES |

|10 |DIABETES (10), 2005 |SES vs BMS |

|11 |Diaz de la Llera (11), 2007 |SES vs BMS |

|12 |ENDEAVOR II (12), 2006 |PC-ZES vs BMS |

|13 |ENDEAVOR III (13), 2006 |PC-ZES vs SES |

|14 |ENDEAVOR IV (14), 2010 |PES vs PC-ZES |

|15 |Erglis (15), 2007 |PES vs BMS |

|16 |ESSENCE DIABETES (16), 2010 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|17 |EXAMINATION (17), 2012 |CoCr-EES vs BMS |

|18 |EXCELLENT (18), 2010 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|19 |GISSOC-II-GISE (19), 2010 |BMS vs SES |

|20 |GRACIA-3 (20), 2010 |PES vs BMS |

|21 |HAAMU (21), 2006 |PES vs BMS |

|22 |Herdeg (22), 2009 |BMS vs Pacl+BMS vs PES |

|23 |HORIZONS-AMI (23), 2009 |PES vs BMS |

|24 |HOST-ASSURE (24), 2013 |PtCr-EES vs Re-ZES |

|25 |ISAR DESIRE (25), 2010 |PES vs SES |

|26 |ISAR DIABETES (26), 2005 |PES vs SES |

|27 |ISAR LEFT MAIN (27), 2009 |PES vs SES |

|28 |ISAR SMART III (28), 2006 |PES vs SES |

|29 |ISAR TEST IV (29), 2009 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|30 |Juwana (30), 2009 |PES vs SES |

|31 |Kamoi (31), 2011 |PES vs SES |

|32 |Kim (32), 2008 |PES vs SES |

|33 |KOMER (33), 2011 |PES vs SES vs PC-ZES |

|34 |LEADERS (34), 2008 |BP-BES vs SES |

|35 |LONG-DES II (35), 2006 |SES vs PES |

|36 |LONG-DES III (36), 2011 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|37 |MISSION (37), 2008 |BMS vs SES |

|38 |MULTISTRATEGY (38), 2008 |BMS vs SES |

|39 |NAPLES (39), 2011 |PES vs SES vs PC-ZES |

|40 |NEXT (40), 2013 |BP-BES vs EES |

|41 |NOBORI I phase I (41), 2007 |BP-BES vs PES |

|42 |NOBORI I phase II (42), 2009 |BP-BES vs PES |

|43 |NOBORI JAPAN (43), 2011 |BP-BES vs SES |

|44 |Ortolani (44), 2007 |SES vs BMS |

|45 |Pache (45), 2005 |BMS vs SES |

|46 |Pan (46), 2007 |SES vs PES |

|47 |Pasceri (47), 2003 |BMS vs SES |

|48 |PASEO (48), 2009 |PES vs SES vs BMS |

|49 |PASSION (49), 2008 |BMS vs PES |

|50 |Petronio (50), 2007 |SES vs PES |

|51 |PLATINUM (51), 2011 |PtCr-EES vs CoCr-EES |

|52 |PRISON II (52), 2006 |SES vs BMS |

|53 |PROSIT (53), 2008 |PES vs SES |

|54 |PROTECT (54), 2012 |PC-ZES vs SES |

|55 |RAVEL (55), 2002 |SES vs BMS |

|56 |REALITY (56), 2006 |PES vs SES |

|57 |RESET (57), 2011 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|58 |RESOLUTE (58), 2010 |CoCr-EES vs Re-ZES |

|59 |SCANDSTENT (59), 2006 |SES vs BMS |

|60 |SCORPIUS (60), 2007 |SES vs BMS |

|61 |SEA-SIDE (61), 2011 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|62 |SELECTION (62), 2007 |BMS vs PES |

|63 |SESAMI (63), 2007 |BMS vs SES |

|64 |SES-SMART (64), 2004 |SES vs BMS |

|65 |SIRIUS (65), 2003 |SES vs BMS |

|66 |E-SIRIUS (66), 2003 |SES vs BMS |

|67 |C-SIRIUS (67), 2004 |SES vs BMS |

|68 |SIRTAX LATE (68), 2011 |PES vs SES |

|69 |SORT OUT II (69), 2008 |PES vs SES |

|70 |SORT OUT III (70), 2010 |PC-ZES vs SES |

|71 |SORT OUT IV (71), 2010 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|72 |SORT OUT V (72), 2012 |BP-BES vs SES |

|73 |SOS (73), 2009 |BMS vs PES |

|74 |SPIRIT II (74), 2006 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|75 |SPIRIT III (75), 2008 |CoCr-EES vs PES |

|76 |SPIRIT IV (76), 2010 |CoCr-EES vs PES |

|77 |SPIRIT V DIABETIC (77), 2010 |CoCr-EES vs PES |

|78 |STRATEGY (78), 2007 |BMS vs SES |

|79 |TAXi (79), 2004 |PES vs SES |

|80 |TAXUS I (80), 2003 |BMS vs PES |

|81 |TAXUS II (81), 2003 |BMS vs PES |

|82 |TAXUS IV (82), 2004 |BMS vs PES |

|83 |TAXUS V (83), 2005 |BMS vs PES |

|84 |TAXUS VI (84), 2005 |BMS vs SES |

|85 |TWENTE (85), 2011 |CoCr-EES vs Re-ZES |

|86 |TYPHOON (86), 2006 |BMS vs SES |

|87 |XAMI (87), 2012 |CoCr-EES vs SES |

|88 |ZEST (88), 2010 |PES vs SES vs PC-ZES |

|89 |ZEST-AMI (89) 2009 |PES vs SES vs PC-ZES |

References

1. Kaiser C, Galatius S, Erne P, et al. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2310-9.

2. Moreno R, Garcia E, Teles R, et al. Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Total Coronary Occlusions: Results From the Chronic Coronary Occlusion Treated by Everolimus-eluting Stent Randomized Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:21-8.

3. Raber L, Kelbaek H, Ostojic M, et al. Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2012;308:777-87.

4. Kedhi E, Joesoef KS, McFadden E, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010;375:201-9.

5. Smits PC, Hofma S, Togni M, et al. Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2013;381:651-60.

6. Wijnbergen I, Helmes H, Tijssen J, et al. Comparison of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention with or without abciximab in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: DEBATER: the Eindhoven reperfusion study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:313-22.

7. Lee SW, Park SW, Kim YH, et al. A randomized comparison of sirolimus- versus Paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:727-33.

8. Maresta A, Varani E, Balducelli M, et al. Comparison of effectiveness and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus (from the Italian Multicenter Randomized DESSERT Study). Am J Cardiol 2008;101:1560-6.

9. Maeng M, Jensen LO, Galloe AM, et al. Comparison of the sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent in patients with diabetes mellitus: the diabetes and drug-eluting stent (DiabeDES) randomized angiography trial. Am J Cardiol 2009;103:345-9.

10. Jimenez-Quevedo P, Sabate M, Angiolillo DJ, et al. Vascular effects of sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in diabetic patients: three-dimensional ultrasound results of the Diabetes and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent (DIABETES) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:2172-9.

11. Diaz de la Llera LS, Ballesteros S, Nevado J, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents compared with standard stents in the treatment of patients with primary angioplasty. Am Heart J 2007;154:164 e1-6.

12. Fajadet J, Wijns W, Laarman GJ, et al. Randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting phosphorylcholine-encapsulated stent for treatment of native coronary artery lesions: clinical and angiographic results of the ENDEAVOR II trial. Circulation 2006;114:798-806.

13. Kandzari DE, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with native coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:2440-7.

14. Leon MB, Mauri L, Popma JJ, et al. A randomized comparison of the ENDEAVOR zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent in de novo native coronary lesions 12-month outcomes from the ENDEAVOR IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:543-54.

15. Erglis A, Narbute I, Kumsars I, et al. A randomized comparison of paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:491-7.

16. Kim WJ, Lee SW, Park SW, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stent versus sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for de novo coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES): results from the ESSENCE-DIABETES trial. Circulation 2011;124:886-92.

17. Sabate M, Cequier A, Iniguez A, et al. Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380:1482-90.

18. Park KW, Chae IH, Lim DS, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the EXCELLENT (Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss After Stenting) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:1844-54.

19. Rubartelli P, Petronio AS, Guiducci V, et al. Comparison of sirolimus-eluting and bare metal stent for treatment of patients with total coronary occlusions: results of the GISSOC II-GISE multicentre randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2014-20.

20. Sanchez PL, Gimeno F, Ancillo P, et al. Role of the paclitaxel-eluting stent and tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing postfibrinolysis angioplasty: the GRACIA-3 randomized clinical trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:297-307.

21. Tierala I, Nikus KC, Sclarovsky S, Syvanne M, Eskola M. Predicting the culprit artery in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction and introducing a new algorithm to predict infarct-related artery in inferior ST-elevation myocardial infarction: correlation with coronary anatomy in the HAAMU Trial. J Electrocardiol 2009;42:120-7.

22. Herdeg C, Gohring-Frischholz K, Haase KK, et al. Catheter-based delivery of fluid paclitaxel for prevention of restenosis in native coronary artery lesions after stent implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:294-301.

23. Stone GW, Lansky AJ, Pocock SJ, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1946-59.

24. Kim H-S, Park K-W, Kang S-H, et al. Randomized Comparison of PtCr-EES vs CoCr-ZES in All-Comers Receiving PCI : The HOST-ASSURE Randomized Trial. Presented at the American College of Cardiology, S. Francisco 2013.

25. Mehilli J, Byrne RA, Tiroch K, et al. Randomized trial of paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of coronary restenosis in sirolimus-eluting stents: the ISAR-DESIRE 2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2710-6.

26. Dibra A, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents to prevent restenosis in diabetic patients. N Engl J Med 2005;353:663-70.

27. Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Byrne RA, et al. Paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:1760-8.

28. Mehilli J, Dibra A, Kastrati A, Pache J, Dirschinger J, Schomig A. Randomized trial of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in small coronary vessels. Eur Heart J 2006;27:260-6.

29. Byrne RA, Kastrati A, Kufner S, et al. Randomized, non-inferiority trial of three limus agent-eluting stents with different polymer coatings: the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) Trial. Eur Heart J 2009;30:2441-9.

30. Juwana YB, Suryapranata H, Ottervanger JP, et al. Comparison of rapamycin- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2009;104:205-9.

31. Kamoi D, Ishii H, Takahashi H, et al. Sirolimus- vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent to coronary intervention in dialysis patients. Int J Cardiol 2011; 165:533-6.

32. Kim MH, Hong SJ, Cha KS, et al. Effect of Paclitaxel-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents on coronary restenosis in Korean diabetic patients. J Interv Cardiol 2008;21:225-31.

33. Kang WC, Ahn T, Lee K, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Korean Multicentre Endeavor (KOMER) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) trial. EuroIntervention 2011;7:936-43.

34. Windecker S, Serruys PW, Wandel S, et al. Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008;372:1163-73.

35. Kim YH, Park SW, Lee SW, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent for patients with long coronary artery disease. Circulation 2006;114:2148-53.

36. Park DW, Kim YH, Song HG, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with long coronary artery lesions: a randomized LONG-DES-III (Percutaneous Treatment of LONG Native Coronary Lesions With Drug-Eluting Stent-III) Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:1096-103.

37. van der Hoeven BL, Liem SS, Jukema JW, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 9-month angiographic and intravascular ultrasound results and 12-month clinical outcome results from the MISSION! Intervention Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:618-26.

38. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Percoco G, et al. Comparison of angioplasty with infusion of tirofiban or abciximab and with implantation of sirolimus-eluting or uncoated stents for acute myocardial infarction: the MULTISTRATEGY randomized trial. JAMA 2008;299:1788-99.

39. Briguori C, Airoldi F, Visconti G, et al. Novel approaches for preventing or limiting events in diabetic patients (Naples-diabetes) trial: a randomized comparison of 3 drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:121-9.

40. Natsuaki M, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. One-Year Outcome of a Trial Comparing Second Generation Drug-eluting Stents Using Either Biodegradable Polymer or Durable Polymer. Presented at the American College of Cardiology, S. Francisco 2013.

41. Chevalier B, Serruys PW, Silber S, et al. Randomised comparison of Nobori, biolimus A9-eluting coronary stent with a Taxus(R), paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent in patients with stenosis in native coronary arteries: the Nobori 1 trial. EuroIntervention 2007;2:426-34.

42. Chevalier B, Silber S, Park SJ, et al. Randomized comparison of the Nobori Biolimus A9-eluting coronary stent with the Taxus Liberte paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent in patients with stenosis in native coronary arteries: the NOBORI 1 trial--Phase 2. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:188-95.

43. Kadota K, Muramatsu T, Iwabuchi M, et al. Randomized comparison of the Nobori Biolimus A9-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with stenosis in native coronary arteries. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;80:789-96.

44. Ortolani P, Marzocchi A, Marrozzini C, et al. Randomized comparative trial of a thin-strut bare metal cobalt-chromium stent versus a sirolimus-eluting stent for coronary revascularization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69:790-8.

45. Pache J, Dibra A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, Schomig A, Kastrati A. Drug-eluting stents compared with thin-strut bare stents for the reduction of restenosis: a prospective, randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2005;26:1262-8.

46. Pan M, Suarez de Lezo J, Medina A, et al. Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcation lesions: a randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents. Am Heart J 2007;153:15 e1-7.

47. Pasceri V GA, Pristipino C, et al. A randomized trial of arapamycin-eluting stent in acute myocardial infarction: preliminary results. TCT 2003. Am J Cardiol 2003. 2003;92 (Suppl 6A).

48. Di Lorenzo E, De Luca G, Sauro R, et al. The PASEO (PaclitAxel or Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare Metal Stent in Primary Angioplasty) Randomized Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:515-23.

49. Laarman GJ, Suttorp MJ, Dirksen MT, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1105-13.

50. Petronio AS, De Carlo M, Branchitta G, et al. Randomized comparison of sirolimus and paclitaxel drug-eluting stents for long lesions in the left anterior descending artery: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:539-46.

51. Stone GW, Teirstein PS, Meredith IT, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of a novel everolimus-eluting coronary stent: the PLATINUM (a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Trial to Assess an Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System [PROMUS Element] for the Treatment of Up to Two de Novo Coronary Artery Lesions) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1700-8.

52. Suttorp MJ, Laarman GJ, Rahel BM, et al. Primary Stenting of Totally Occluded Native Coronary Arteries II (PRISON II): a randomized comparison of bare metal stent implantation with sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of total coronary occlusions. Circulation 2006;114:921-8.

53. Lee JH, Kim HS, Lee SW, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: pROSIT trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008;72:25-32.

54. Camenzind E, Wijns W, Mauri L, et al. Stent thrombosis and major clinical events at 3 years after zotarolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation: a randomised, multicentre, open-label, controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380:1396-405.

55. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1773-80.

56. Morice MC, Colombo A, Meier B, et al. Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;295:895-904.

57. Kimura T, Morimoto T, Natsuaki M, et al. Comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: 1-year outcomes from the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting Versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial (RESET). Circulation 2012;126:1225-36.

58. Serruys PW, Silber S, Garg S, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med 2010;363:136-46.

59. Kelbaek H, Thuesen L, Helqvist S, et al. The Stenting Coronary Arteries in Non-stress/benestent Disease (SCANDSTENT) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:449-55.

60. Baumgart D, Klauss V, Baer F, et al. One-year results of the SCORPIUS study: a German multicenter investigation on the effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1627-34.

61. Burzotta F, Trani C, Todaro D, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of sirolimus- or everolimus-eluting stent to treat bifurcated lesions by provisional approach. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:327-35.

62. Chechi T, Vittori G, Biondi Zoccai GG, et al. Single-center randomized evaluation of paclitaxel-eluting versus conventional stent in acute myocardial infarction (SELECTION). J Interv Cardiol 2007;20:282-91.

63. Menichelli M, Parma A, Pucci E, et al. Randomized trial of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI). J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1924-30.

64. Ardissino D, Cavallini C, Bramucci E, et al. Sirolimus-eluting vs uncoated stents for prevention of restenosis in small coronary arteries: a randomized trial. JAMA 2004;292:2727-34.

65. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1315-23.

66. Schofer J, Schluter M, Gershlick AH, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS). Lancet 2003;362:1093-9.

67. Schampaert E, Cohen EA, Schluter M, et al. The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS). J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1110-5.

68. Raber L, Wohlwend L, Wigger M, et al. Five-year clinical and angiographic outcomes of a randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: results of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization LATE trial. Circulation 2011;123:2819-28.

69. Galloe AM, Thuesen L, Kelbaek H, et al. Comparison of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in everyday clinical practice: the SORT OUT II randomized trial. JAMA 2008;299:409-16.

70. Rasmussen K, Maeng M, Kaltoft A, et al. Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet 2010;375:1090-9.

71. Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Hansen HS, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV). Circulation 2012;125:1246-55.

72. Christiansen EH, Jensen LO, Thayssen P, et al. Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2013;381:661-9.

73. Brilakis ES, Lichtenwalter C, de Lemos JA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a similar bare-metal stent in saphenous vein graft lesions the SOS (Stenting of Saphenous Vein Grafts) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:919-28.

74. Serruys PW, Ruygrok P, Neuzner J, et al. A randomised comparison of an everolimus-eluting coronary stent with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent:the SPIRIT II trial. EuroIntervention 2006;2:286-94.

75. Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. JAMA 2008;299:1903-13.

76. Stone GW, Rizvi A, Newman W, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1663-74.

77. Grube E, Chevalier B, Guagliumi G, et al. The SPIRIT V diabetic study: a randomized clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent vs the TAXUS Liberte paclitaxel-eluting stent in diabetic patients with de novo coronary artery lesions. Am Heart J 2012;163:867-875 e1.

78. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Arcozzi C, et al. Two-year clinical follow-up after sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation assisted by systematic glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Infusion in patients with myocardial infarction: results from the STRATEGY study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:138-45.

79. Goy JJ, Stauffer JC, Siegenthaler M, Benoit A, Seydoux C. A prospective randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents in the real world of interventional cardiology: the TAXi trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:308-11.

80. Grube E, Silber S, Hauptmann KE, et al. TAXUS I: six- and twelve-month results from a randomized, double-blind trial on a slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent for de novo coronary lesions. Circulation 2003;107:38-42.

81. Colombo A, Drzewiecki J, Banning A, et al. Randomized study to assess the effectiveness of slow- and moderate-release polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary artery lesions. Circulation 2003;108:788-94.

82. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;350:221-31.

83. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cannon L, et al. Comparison of a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent with a bare metal stent in patients with complex coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:1215-23.

84. Dawkins KD, Grube E, Guagliumi G, et al. Clinical efficacy of polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents in the treatment of complex, long coronary artery lesions from a multicenter, randomized trial: support for the use of drug-eluting stents in contemporary clinical practice. Circulation 2005;112:3306-13.

85. von Birgelen C, Basalus MW, Tandjung K, et al. A randomized controlled trial in second-generation zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stents versus everolimus-eluting Xience V stents in real-world patients: the TWENTE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1350-61.

86. Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, et al. Sirolimus-eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1093-104.

87. Hofma SH, Brouwer J, Velders MA, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction. 1-year results of the randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs. Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:381-7.

88. Park DW, Kim YH, Yun SC, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization: the ZEST (comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stent with sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stent for coronary lesions) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:1187-95.

89. Lee CW, Park DW, Lee SH, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-, sirolimus-, and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2009;104:1370-6.

Onlinel Table 2. Randomized controlled trials included in the network meta-analysis

|Study |Primary endpoint |Design |Rand ratio |Maximal |Stent comparators |Results of the primary endpoint |

| | | | |length of | | |

| | | | |follow-up | | |

|BASKET PROVE, 2010 |Cardiac death and MI at 2 years |Multicenter, superiority |1:1:1 |2 years |CoCr-EES/SES/BMS |Superiority not demonstrated |

| | | | | |2,314 (774/775/765) | |

|CIBELES, 2012 |In-stent late lumen loss |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |1 year |CoCr-EES/SES |CoCr-EES noninferior to SES |

| |at 9 month | | | |207 (106/101) | |

|COMFORTABLE AMI, 2012 |Cardiac death, MI, TVR at 1 year |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |1 year |BP-BES/BMS |BP-BES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |1,157 (575/582) | |

|COMPARE, 2010 |Death, MI, TVR at 1 year |Single center, superiority |1:1 |2 years |CoCr-EES/PES |CoCr-EES superior to PES |

| | | | | |1,800 (897/903) | |

|COMPARE II, 2012 |Cardiac death, non-fatal MI, TVR at 1 |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:2 |1 years |CoCr-EES/BP-BES |BES noninferior to CoCr-EES |

| |year | | | |2,707 (912/1,795) | |

|DEBATER, 2012 |Death, MI, Stroke, TVR |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |1 year |SES/BMS |SES superior to BMS |

| |at 1 year | | | |400 (200/200) | |

|DES-DIABETES, 2008 |In-segment restenosis |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |PES/SES |SES superior to PES |

| |at 6 months | | | |400 (200/200) | |

|DESSERT, 2008 |In-stent late lumen loss |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |1 year |SES/BMS |SES superior to BMS |

| |at 8 months | | | |150 (75/75) | |

|DIABEDES, 2009 |In-stent late luminal loss at 8 months |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |8 months |PES/SES |SES superior to PES |

| | | | | |153 (77/76) | |

|DIABETES, 2005 |In-segment late lumen loss |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |2 years |SES/BMS |SES superior to BMS |

| |at 9 months | | | |160 (80/80) | |

|Diaz de Llera, 2007 |Death, MI, TLR at 1 year |Single center, superiority |1:1 |1 year |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |114 (54/60) | |

|ENDEAVOR II, 2006 |TVF at 9 months |Multicenter, superiority of PC-ZES |1:1 |5 years |PC-ZES/BMS |PC-ZES superior to BMS |

| | |vs BMS | | |1,193 (597/596) | |

|ENDEAVOR III, 2006 |Late lumen loss at 8 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:3 |5 years |SES/PC-ZES |PC-ZES inferior to SES |

| | | | | |436 (113/323) | |

|ENDEAVOR IV, 2010 |TVF at 9 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |3 years |PES/PC-ZES |PES noninferior to PC-ZES |

| | | | | |1,548 (775/773) | |

|Erglis et al., 2007 |NA |Single center |1:1 |6 months |PES/BMS |Lower restenosis with PES than BMS |

| | | | | |103 (53/50) | |

|ESSENCE DIABETES, 2010 |In-segment late loss at 8 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |1 year |CoCr-EES/SES |CoCr-EES noninferior to SES |

| | | | | |300 (149/151) | |

|EXAMINATION, 2011 |Death, MI, any revascularization at 1 |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |1 year |CoCr-EES/BMS |Superiority not demonstrated |

| |year | | | |1,504 (751/747) | |

|EXCELLENT, 2010 |In-segment late loss at 9 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |3:1 |1 year |CoCr-EES/SES |CoCr-EES noninferior to SES |

| | | | | |1,443 (1,079/364) | |

|GISSOC II-GISE, 2010 |In-segment minimal luminal diameter at 8 |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |2 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |month | | | |152 (78/74) | |

|GRACIA-3, 2010 |In-segment binary restenosis at 1 year |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |1 year |BMS/PES |BMS noninferior to PES |

| | | | | |419 (210/209) | |

|HAAMU, 2006 |Death, MI, TVR at 1 year |Single center, superiority |1:1 |1 year |BMS/PES |PES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |164 (82/82) | |

|Herdeg et al., 2009 |In-stent late lumen loss |Single center, superiority (BMS + |1:1:1 |6 months |BMS + Pacl./BMS/PES |BMS + Pacl. superior to BMS alone, BMS +|

| |at 6 months |Pacl. vs BMS alone) and | | |202 (67/68/67) |Pacl. noninferior to PES |

| | |noninferiority (BMS + Pacl. vs PES) | | | | |

|HORIZONS-AMI, 2009 |1) TLR at 1 year; 2) Death, MI, stroke or|Multicenter, superiority for TLR; |3:1 |3 years |BMS/PES |PES superior for TLR and noninferior for|

| |ST at 1 year |noninferiority for death, MI, | | |3,006 (2,257/749) |clinical endpoints |

| | |stroke, ST | | | | |

|HOST-ASSURE, 2013 |TLF at 12 month |Multicenter, noninferiority |2:1 |1 year |PtCr-EES/Re-ZES |PtCr-EES noninferior |

| | | | | |3,755 (2,503/1,252) |to CoCr-ZES |

|ISAR DESIRE, 2010 |Late lumen loss |Two-center, noninferiority |1:1 |5 years |PES/SES |PES noninferior to SES |

| |at 8 months | | | |450 (225/225) | |

|ISAR DIABETES, 2005 |Late lumen loss at 6 months |Two-center, noninferiority |1:1 |5 years |PES/SES |PES inferior to SES |

| | | | | |250 (125/125) | |

|ISAR LEFT MAIN, 2009 |Death, MI, TLR at 12 months |Multicenter, safety study |1:1 |2 years |PES/SES |PES as safe as SES |

| | | | | |607 (302/305) | |

|ISAR SMART III, 2006 |In-stent late luminal loss |Two-center, noninferiority |1:1 |5 years |PES/SES |PES inferior to SES |

| |at 8 months | | | |360 (180/180) | |

|ISAR TEST IV, 2009 |Cardiac death, MI, and TLR |Two-center, noninferiority |1:1 |3 years |CoCr-EES/SES |CoCr-EES noninferior to SES |

| |at 1 year | | | |1,304 (652/652) | |

|Juwana, 2009 |Late lumen loss at 9 months |Single center, superiority |1:1 |1 year |PES/SES |SES superior to PES |

| | | | | |397 (201/196) | |

|Kamoi et al., 2011 |Angiographic outcomes |Single center, superiority |1:1 |1 year |PES/SES |PES not superior to SES |

| |at 8 months | | | |100 (50/50) | |

|Kim et al., 2008 |Cardiac death, MI, TLR |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |3 years |PES/SES |PES nonsuperior to SES |

| | | | | |169 (84/85) | |

|KOMER, 2011 |Cardiac death, MI, ischemia driven TLR at|Multicenter, safety study |1:1:1 |18 months |PES/SES/PC-ZES |PC-ZES as safe as SES and PES |

| |1 year | | | |611 (202/204/205) | |

|LEADERS, 2008 |Cardiac death, MI, TVR |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |4 years |BP-BES/SES |BES noninferior to BP-SES |

| |at 9 months | | | |1,707 (857/850) | |

|LONG DES II, 2006 |Binary in-segment restenosis |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |9 months |PES/SES |SES superior to PES |

| |at 6 months | | | |500 (250/250) | |

|LONG DES III, 2011 |In-segment late loss at 9 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |1 year |CoCr-EES/SES |CoCr-EES inferior to SES |

| | | | | |450 (224/226) | |

|MISSION, 2008 |In-segment late luminal loss |Single center, noninferiority |1:1 |5 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |at 9 months | | | |310 (152/158) | |

|MULTISTRATEGY, 2008 |Death, MI, |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |3 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |clinically-driven TVR at 8 months | | | |744 (372/372) | |

|NAPLES, 2011 |Death, nonfatal MI, clinically driven TVR|Single-center, superiority |1:1:1 |3 years |PES/SES/PC-ZES |PES and SES superior to |

| |at 3 years | | | |226 (75/76/75) |PC-ZES |

|NEXT, 2013 |1) TLR at 1 year; 2) Death or MI at 3 |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |1 year |BES/EES |BES noninferior to EES |

| |years | | | |3,235 (1,617/1,618) | |

|NOBORI I phase I, 2007 |In-stent late loss at 9 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:2 |5 years |BP-BES/PES |BP-BES noninferior to PES |

| | | | | |120 (35/85) | |

|NOBORI I phase II, 2009 |In-stent late loss at 9 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |2:1 |1 year |BP-BES/PES |BP-BES noninferior to PES |

| | | | | |243 (153/90) | |

|NOBORI JAPAN, 2011 |TVF at 9 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |3:2 |3 years |BP-BES/SES |BP-BES noninferior to SES |

| | | | | |326 (194/132) | |

|Ortolani et al., 2007 |In-segment late loss at 9 months |Single center, superiority |1:1 |1 year |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |104 (52/52) | |

|Pache et al., 2005 |Angiographic restenosis |Two center, superiority |1:1 |1 year |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |at 6 months | | | |500 (250/250) | |

|Pan et al., 2007 |Binary restenosis and TLR |Two center, superiority |1:1 |2 years |PES/SES |SES superior to PES |

| |at 1 year. | | | |205 (102/103) | |

|Pasceri, 2003 |Death, MI, |Single center, |1:1 |6 years |BMS/SES |No significant differences between |

| |recurrent ischemia at 1 year |safety outcome | | |65 (33/32) |stents |

|PASEO, 2009 |TLR at 12 months |Single center, superiority |1:1:1 |4 years |BMS/PES/SES |PES and SES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |270 (90/90/90) | |

|PASSION, 2008 |Cardiac death, MI, TLR |Two center, superiority |1:1 |5 years |BMS/PES |Superiority not demonstrated |

| |at 2 years | | | |619 (310/309) | |

|Petronio et al., 2007 |Neointimal hyperplasia at 9 month by IVUS|Single center, superiority |1:1 |9 months |PES/SES |SES superior to PES |

| | | | | |85 (43/42) | |

|PLATINUM, 2011 |TLF at 1 year |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |3 years |PtCr-EES/CoCr-EES 1,530 |PtCr-EES noninferior to CoCr-EES |

| | | | | |(768/762) | |

|PRISON II, 2006 |Angiographic in-segment restenosis at 6 |Two center, superiority |1:1 |3 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |months | | | |200 (100/100) | |

|PROSIT, 2008 |Death, MI, TVR, ST at 1 year |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |3 years |PES/SES |Superiority not demonstrated |

| | | | | |308 (154/154) | |

|PROTECT, 2012 |Definite or probable ST |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |3 years |C-SES vs E-ZES |E-ZES nonsuperior to C-SES |

| |at 3 years | | | |8,791 (4,352/4,357) | |

|RAVEL, 2002 |In-stent late lumen loss |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |at 6 months | | | |238 (120/118) | |

|REALITY, 2006 |Binary restenosis at 8 months |Multicenter, safety study |1:1 |1 year |PES/SES |No significant differences between |

| | | | | |1,353 (669/684) |stents |

|RESET, 2011 |TVF 12 months |Multicenter, |1:1 |1 year |CoCr-EES/SES |CoCr-EES noninferior to SES |

| | |noninferiority | | |3,200 (1,200/1,200) | |

|RESOLUTE, 2010 |TLF at 12 months |Multicenter, |1:1 |2 years |CoCr-EES/Re-ZES |Re-ZES noninferior to CoCr-EES |

| | |noninferiority | | |2,292 (1,152/1,140) | |

|SCANDSTENT, 2006 |Minimal lumen diameter at 6 months |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |3 years |SES/BMS |SES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |322 (163/159) | |

|SCORPIUS, 2007 |Late luminal loss at 12 months |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |5 years |SES/BMS |SES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |200 (98/102) | |

|SEA-SIDE, 2011 |Minimal lumen diameter at the side branch|Single center, safety study |1:1 |18 months |EES/SES |SES similar to EES |

| |ostium at 18 months | | | |150 (75/75) | |

|SELECTION, 2007 |Neointimal proliferation by IVUS at 7 |Single-center, superiority |1:1 |7 months |BMS/PES |PES superior to BMS |

| |months | | | |76 (39/37) | |

|SESAMI, 2007 |Binary restenosis at 1 year |Single center, superiority |1:1 |5 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |320 (160/160) | |

|SES-SMART, 2004 |Angiographic in-segment restenosis at 8 |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |8 months |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |months | | | |257 (128/129) | |

|SIRIUS, 2003 |TVF at 9 months |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |1,058 (533/525) | |

|E-SIRIUS, 2003 |In-stent minimum lumen diameter at 8 |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |months | | | |352 (175/177) | |

|C-SIRIUS, 2004 |In-stent minimum lumen diameter at 8 |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |months | | | |100 (50/50) | |

|SIRTAX LATE, 2011 |Cardiac death, MI, |Single center, superiority |1:1 |5 years |PES/SES |Superiority not demonstrated |

| |TLR at 9 months | | | |1,012 (509/503) | |

|SORT OUT II, 2008 |Cardiac death, MI, TVR |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |1 year |PES/SES |Superiority not demonstrated |

| |at 1 year | | | |2,098 (1,033/1,065) | |

|SORT OUT III, 2010 |Cardiac death, MI, TVR |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |18 months |SES/PC-ZES |SES superior to PC-ZES |

| |at 9 months | | | |2,332 (1,170/1,162) | |

|SORT OUT IV, 2010 |Cardiac death, MI, definite ST, and TVR |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |18 months |CoCr-EES/SES |CoCr-EES noninferior to SES |

| |at 9 months | | | |2,774 (1,390/1,384) | |

|SORT OUT V, 2012 |Cardiac death, MI, definite ST and |Multicenter, noninferiority |1:1 |1 year |BP-BES/SES |Noninferiority not demonstrated |

| |clinically-driven TVR | | | |2,468 (1,229/1,239) | |

| |at 9 months | | | | | |

|SOS, 2009 |Angiographic restenosis |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |3 years |BMS/PES |PES superior to BMS |

| |at 12 months | | | |80 (41/39) | |

|SPIRIT II, 2006 |In-stent late loss at 6 months |Multicenter, noninferiority |3:1 |2 years |CoCr-EES/PES |CoCr-EES noninferior to PES |

| | | | | |300 (223/77) | |

|SPIRIT III, 2008 |In-segment late loss at 9 months |Multicenter, noninferiority or |2:1 |2 years |CoCr-EES/PES |CoCr-EES superior to PES |

| | |superiority | | |1,002 (669/333) | |

|SPIRIT IV, 2010 |TLF at 1 year |Multicenter, noninferiority or |2:1 |2 years |CoCr-EES/PES |CoCr-EES superior to PES |

| | |superiority | | |3,687 (2,458/1,229) | |

|SPIRIT V DIABETIC, 2010 |In-stent late loss at 9 months |Multicenter, superiority |2:1 |1 year |CoCr-EES/PES |CoCr-EES superior to PES |

| | | | | |324 (218/106) | |

|STRATEGY, 2007 |Death, MI, stroke, binary restenosis at 8|Two center, superiority |1:1 |2 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| |months | | | |175 (87/88) | |

|TAXI, 2004 |Cardiac death, MI, TLR |Single center, superiority |1:1 |3 years |PES/SES |Superiority not demonstrated |

| |at 6 months | | | |202 (100/102) | |

|TAXUS I, 2003 |Death, MI, TVR, ST |Multicenter, safety study |1:1 |4 years |BMS/PES |PES as safe as BMS |

| |at 12 months | | | |61 (31/30) | |

|TAXUS II, 2003 |Neointimal proliferation by IVUS at 6 |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |BMS/PES |PES superior to BMS |

| |months | | | |536 (266/270) | |

|TAXUS IV, 2004 |Ischemia-driven TVR |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |BMS/PES |PES superior to BMS |

| |at 9 months | | | |1,314 (662/652) | |

|TAXUS V, 2005 |Ischemia-driven TVR |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |BMS/PES |PES superior to BMS |

| |at 9 months | | | |1,156 (577/579) | |

|TAXUS VI, 2005 |TVR 9 months |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |5 years |BMS/PES |PES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |446 (219/227) | |

|TWENTE, 2011 |TVF 12 months |Single-center, noninferiority |1:1 |1 year |CoCr-EES/Re-ZES |Re-ZES noninferior to |

| | | | | |1,391 (694/697) |CoCr-EES |

|TYPHOON, 2006 |TVF at 1 year |Multicenter, superiority |1:1 |4 years |BMS/SES |SES superior to BMS |

| | | | | |712 (355/357) | |

|XAMI, 2012 |Cardiac death, MI, TVR |Multicenter, |2:1 |1 year |EES/SES |EES noninferior to SES |

| |at 1 year |noninferiority | | |625 (404/221) | |

|ZEST, 2010 |Death, MI, and ischemia-driven TVR at 12 |Multicenter, |1:1:1 |1 year |PES/SES/ZES |ZES noninferior to SES, |

| |months |Non-inferiority | | |2,645 (1,205/1,218/1,190) |ZES superior to PES |

| | |(ZES vs. SES); | | | | |

| | |superiority (ZES vs. PES) | | | | |

|ZEST-AMI, 2009 |Death, MI and |Multicenter, |1:1:1 |1 year |PES/SES/PC-ZES |No significant differences between |

| |ischemia-driven TVR |safety study | | |328 (110/110/108) |stents |

| |at 1 year | | | | | |

Rand denotes randomization; DES denotes drug-eluting stent; MI denotes myocardial infarction; TLR denotes target lesion revascularization; TVR denotes target vessel revascularization; ST denotes stent thrombosis; CoCr-EES denotes cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PES denotes paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES denotes sirolimus-eluting stents; BMS denotes bare metal stent stents; PC-ZES denotes phosphorylcholine polymer based zotarolimus-eluting stent; NA denotes not available; TLR denotes target lesion revascularization; TVR denotes target vessel revascularization; TVF denotes target vessel failure, defined as cardiac death, target vessel MI, or TVR; TLF denotes target lesion failure, defined as cardiac death, target vessel MI, or TLR.

Online Table 3. Inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria and internal validity assessment of randomized trials included in the meta-analysis

|Study |Lesion length |Maximum |Major patient and lesion exclusion |DAPT duration |Concealment of |Intention-to-tr|Blinded adjudication|

| | |lesions/patient |criteria | |allocation treatment |eat analysis |of events |

|BASKET PROVE |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes† |

|CIBELES |No limit |1 |Complex or high risk |12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|COMFORTABLE AMI |No limit |1 |Bleeding diathesis |12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|COMPARE |No limit |No limit |None |12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|COMPARE II |No limit |No limit |Killip class IV |12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|DEBATER |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |6 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|DES-DIABETES |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |≥6 months |Yes |NA |Yes |

|DESSERT |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |6 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|DIABEDES |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |≥12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|DIABETES |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|Diaz de Llera |No limit |No limit |Killip class IV |9 months |NA |Yes |Yes |

|ENDEAVOR II |14-27 mm |1 |Complex or high risk |3 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|ENDEAVOR III |14-27 mm |No limit |Complex or high risk |≥3 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|ENDEAVOR IV |≤27 mm |1 |Complex or high risk |≥6 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|Erglis |No limit |No limit |None |NA |NA |NA |NA |

|ESSENCE DIABETES |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |12 months |NA |Yes |Yes |

|EXAMINATION |No limit |No limit |None |12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|EXCELLENT |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |6-12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|GISSOC-II-GISE |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |6 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|GRACIA-3 |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |12 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|HAAMU |No limit |No limit |None |12 months |NA |NA |NA |

|Herdeg |No limit |No limit |Complex or high risk |6 months |Yes |Yes |Yes |

|HORIZON AMI |99) |0.56 (0.14-2.57) |1.13 (0.03-30.8) |0.57 (0.15-2.21) |

|SES vs PES |0.78 (0.46-1.25) |0.53 (0.21-1.27) |0.76 (0.51-1.11) |0.95 (0.48-1.63) |0.81 (0.56-1.15) |

|PC-ZES vs PES |1.16 (0.64-2.17) |1.71 (0.62-5.32) |1.31 (0.79-2.26) |0.16 (0.05-0.34) |0.72 (0.45-1.16) |

|Re-ZES vs PES |1.16 (0.27-5.67) |1.96 (0.25-26.16) |1.46 (0.46-5.14) |0.15 (0.02-1.58) |1.00 (0.33-2.83) |

|CoCr-EES vs PES |0.31 (0.16-0.59) |0.26 (0.09-0.63) |0.32 (0.19-0.51) |0.30 (0.14-0.72) |0.32 (0.20-0.48) |

|PtCr-EES vs PES |0.55 (0.10-3.49) |1.21 (0.05->99) |0.69 (0.17-3.14) |0.45 (0.01-15.71) |0.52 (0.14-1.96) |

|PC-ZES vs SES |1.49 (0.86-2.85) |3.19 (1.17-10.40) |1.72 (1.04-3.09) |0.18 (0.05-0.36) |0.88 (0.56-1.48) |

|Re-ZES vs SES |1.50 (0.36-7.30) |3.72 (0.49-50.13) |1.91 (0.62-6.82) |0.17 (0.02-1.77) |1.23 (0.42-3.57) |

|CoCr-EES vs SES |0.40 (0.22-0.71) |0.48 (0.19-1.11) |0.42 (0.26-0.68) |0.32 (0.13-0.83) |0.39 (0.25-0.61) |

|PtCr-EES vs SES |0.71 (0.14-4.60) |2.27 (0.10->99) |0.91 (0.23-4.19) |0.46 (0.01-16.86) |0.64 (0.18-2.44) |

|Re-ZES vs PC-ZES |0.99 (0.20-5.20) |1.12 (0.12-17.43) |1.12 (0.32-4.14) |1.08 (0.11-14.73) |1.40 (0.42-4.09) |

|CoCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.26 (0.12-0.56) |0.15 (0.04-0.50) |0.24 (0.12-0.46) |1.98 (0.71-8.45) |0.45 (0.23-0.77) |

|PtCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.46 (0.08-3.36) |0.71 (0.03-82.78) |0.53 (0.12-2.53) |2.36 (0.07->99) |0.73 (0.18-2.96) |

|CoCr-EES vs Re-ZES |0.26 (0.06-0.96) |0.13 (0.01-0.76) |0.22 (0.07-0.61) |2.01 (0.24-13.67) |0.32 (0.12-0.84) |

|PtCr-EES vs Re-ZES |0.48 (0.11-2.09) |0.61 (0.02-41.09) |0.47 (0.13-1.74) |3.15 (0.03->99) |0.52 (0.16-1.74) |

|PtCr-EES vs CoCr-EES |1.78 (0.39-9.98) |4.68 (0.24->99) |2.15 (0.59-9.18) |1.63 (0.04-51.82) |1.63 (0.48-6.37) |

| | | | | | |

| |Early def/prob ST |Late def/prob ST |1-year def/prob ST |Very late def/prob ST |Long-term def/prob ST |

| |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |HR (95% CI) |

|BP-BES vs BMS |0.39 (0.14-0.90) |0.54 (0.14-2.13) |0.61 (0.38-0.94) |0.62 (0.29-1.28) |0.60 (0.40-0.89) |

|BP-BES vs PES |0.47 (0.17-1.07) |0.40 (0.10-1.61) |0.65 (0.39-1.05) |0.36 (0.15-0.80) |0.52 (0.31-0.81) |

|BP-BES vs SES |0.72 (0.29-1.53) |1.00 (0.28-3.49) |0.99 (0.64-1.52) |0.52 (0.25-1.03) |0.72 (0.47-1.07) |

|BP-BES vs PC-ZES |0.54 (0.18-1.32) |0.26 (0.05-1.17) |0.61 (0.34-1.10) |1.30 (0.44-3.42) |0.81 (0.48-1.33) |

|BP-BES vs Re-ZES |1.20 (0.35-4.23) |0.23 (0.03-1.64) |1.02 (0.44-2.32) |1.19 (0.29-4.43) |0.83 (0.34-1.81) |

|CoCr-EES vs BP-BES |0.84 (0.37-2.09) |0.81 (0.22-3.15) |0.65 (0.39-1.05) |0.94 (0.42-2.36) |0.80 (0.50-1.36) |

|PtCr-EES vs BP-BES |0.41 (0.08-1.96) |6.11 (0.37->99) |0.57 (0.19-1.78) |0.51 (0.10-3.09) |0.71 (0.25-1.79) |

|PES vs BMS |0.83 (0.51-1.34) |1.34 (0.68-2.68) |0.93 (0.68-1.27) |1.72 (1.07-3.00) |1.15 (0.89-1.57) |

|SES vs BMS |0.54 (0.33-0.85) |0.54 (0.28-1.09) |0.61 (0.45-0.81) |1.20 (0.77-1.90) |0.83 (0.66-1.09) |

|PC-ZES vs BMS |0.73 (0.38-1.43) |2.02 (0.76-5.89) |0.99 (0.62-1.55) |0.48 (0.22-1.12) |0.75 (0.50-1.12) |

|Re-ZES vs BMS |0.32 (0.10-0.90) |2.28 (0.47-12.88) |0.59 (0.28-1.28) |0.53 (0.16-1.84) |0.73 (0.35-1.55) |

|CoCr-EES vs BMS |0.32 (0.18-0.57) |0.44 (0.20-0.92) |0.39 (0.27-0.57) |0.59 (0.33-1.11) |0.48 (0.34-0.70) |

|PtCr-EES vs BMS |0.16 (0.03-0.64) |3.23 (0.26->99) |0.35 (0.12-1.03) |0.32 (0.07-1.69) |0.43 (0.16-1.03) |

|SES vs PES |0.65 (0.40-1.03) |0.41 (0.19-0.83) |0.65 (0.48-0.89) |0.69 (0.41-1.14) |0.72 (0.58-0.92) |

|PC-ZES vs PES |0.87 (0.47-1.67) |1.51 (0.56-4.22) |1.05 (0.67-1.67) |0.28 (0.12-0.61) |0.64 (0.45-0.98) |

|Re-ZES vs PES |0.39 (0.12-1.07) |1.7 (0.36-9.41) |0.64 (0.30-1.38) |0.30 (0.09-1.02) |0.63 (0.31-1.22) |

|CoCr-EES vs PES |0.39 (0.22-0.67) |0.33 (0.16-0.65) |0.42 (0.29-0.61) |0.34 (0.18-0.64) |0.41 (0.30-0.57) |

|PtCr-EES vs PES |0.19 (0.04-0.76) |2.39 (0.19->99) |0.37 (0.13-1.11) |0.18 (0.04-0.93) |0.36 (0.14-0.89) |

|PC-ZES vs SES |1.34 (0.76-2.49) |3.73 (1.55-9.96) |1.62 (1.07-2.42) |0.40 (0.19-0.87) |0.89 (0.64-1.29) |

|Re-ZES vs SES |0.60 (0.19-1.63) |4.21 (0.89-24.12) |0.98 (0.47-2.10) |0.44 (0.14-1.48) |0.88 (0.43-1.69) |

|CoCr-EES vs SES |0.60 (0.35-1.01) |0.80 (0.39-1.63) |0.64 (0.45-0.91) |0.49 (0.28-0.89) |0.57 (0.41-0.78) |

|PtCr-EES vs SES |0.30 (0.06-1.17) |5.89 (0.49->99) |0.57 (0.20-1.68) |0.27 (0.06-1.38) |0.51 (0.19-1.22) |

|Re-ZES vs PC-ZES |0.45 (0.12-1.36) |1.14 (0.19-7.35) |0.61 (0.27-1.40) |1.10 (0.27-4.29) |0.99 (0.43-2.06) |

|CoCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.45 (0.21-0.91) |0.21 (0.07-0.60) |0.40 (0.23-0.66) |1.22 (0.51-3.04) |0.64 (0.40-0.99) |

|PtCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.22 (0.04-0.95) |1.55 (0.11-79.33) |0.35 (0.12-1.10) |0.66 (0.12-3.84) |0.58 (0.20-1.41) |

|CoCr-EES vs Re-ZES |1.00 (0.42-2.64) |0.19 (0.04-0.72) |0.65 (0.34-1.26) |1.13 (0.39-3.30) |0.66 (0.36-1.21) |

|PtCr-EES vs Re-ZES |0.49 (0.15-1.60) |1.38 (0.13-53.11) |0.58 (0.24-1.46) |0.61 (0.18-2.17) |0.56 (0.26-1.36) |

|PtCr-EES vs CoCr-EES |0.49 (0.12-1.80) |7.37 (0.68->99) |0.89 (0.33-2.43) |0.54 (0.12-2.48) |0.88 (0.38-2.07) |

Statistically significant comparisons are highlighted in bold. BMS denotes bare metal stent stents; PES denotes paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES denotes sirolimus-eluting stents; PC-ZES denotes phosphorylcholine polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent; Re-ZES denotes Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES denotes cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES denotes platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; def/prob denotes definite probable; ST denotes stent thrombosis; OR denotes odds ratio; CI denotes credible interval; HR denotes hazard ratio.

Online Table 8: Sensitivity analysis based on fixed effect models showing estimates of risk between different stent types for 1-year clinical outcomes

| |1-year cardiac death/MI |1-year MI |1-year TVR |1-year definite ST |

| |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |

|PES vs BMS |0.88 (0.75-1.05) |0.84 (0.71-1.00) |0.48 (0.42-0.56) |0.83 (0.61-1.15) |

|SES vs BMS |0.71 (0.60-0.84) |0.68 (0.57-0.81) |0.32 (0.28-0.37) |0.66 (0.49-0.89) |

|PC-ZES vs BMS |0.78 (0.59-1.02) |0.65 (0.48-0.87) |0.57 (0.47-0.69) |1.08 (0.67-1.72) |

|Re-ZES vs BMS |0.60 (0.43-0.86) |0.56 (0.38-0.82) |0.34 (0.24-0.50) |1.15 (0.40-4.08) |

|BP-BES vs BMS |0.70 (0.55-0.90) |0.68 (0.52-0.89) |0.33 (0.26-0.42) |0.66 (0.40-1.07) |

|CoCr-EES vs BMS |0.63 (0.51-0.76) |0.57 (0.45-0.71) |0.32 (0.27-0.38) |0.27 (0.17-0.42) |

|PtCr-EES vs BMS |0.54 (0.34-0.87) |0.42 (0.23-0.76) |0.31 (0.19-0.50) |0.60 (0.16-2.11) |

|SES vs PES |0.81 (0.70-0.92) |0.80 (0.69-0.93) |0.67 (0.59-0.76) |0.78 (0.58-1.08) |

|PC-ZES vs PES |0.88 (0.69-1.11) |0.78 (0.59-1.01) |1.18 (0.99-1.40) |1.30 (0.82-2.02) |

|Re-ZES vs PES |0.68 (0.49-0.96) |0.67 (0.46-0.96) |0.71 (0.49-1.02) |1.38 (0.48-4.95) |

|BP-BES vs PES |0.79 (0.62-1.00) |0.81 (0.63-1.04) |0.69 (0.55-0.86) |0.80 (0.47-1.32) |

|CoCr-EES vs PES |0.71 (0.60-0.84) |0.68 (0.56-0.82) |0.66 (0.56-0.77) |0.32 (0.21-0.49) |

|PtCr-EES vs PES |0.61 (0.39-0.97) |0.50 (0.27-0.90) |0.64 (0.39-1.03) |0.71 (0.19-2.56) |

|PC-ZES vs SES |1.09 (0.85-1.41) |0.96 (0.72-1.27) |1.75 (1.48-2.07) |1.65 (1.07-2.49) |

|Re-ZES vs SES |0.85 (0.62-1.19) |0.83 (0.58-1.19) |1.05 (0.74-1.50) |1.74 (0.62-6.21) |

|BP-BES vs SES |0.98 (0.79-1.23) |1.01 (0.80-1.26) |1.02 (0.84-1.25) |1.01 (0.62-1.62) |

|CoCr-EES vs SES |0.88 (0.75-1.04) |0.85 (0.70-1.00) |0.98 (0.84-1.13) |0.41 (0.27-0.61) |

|PtCr-EES vs SES |0.76 (0.49-1.20) |0.62 (0.35-1.11) |0.95 (0.58-1.53) |0.91 (0.25-3.19) |

|Re-ZES vs PC-ZES |0.78 (0.52-1.17) |0.86 (0.55-1.33) |0.60 (0.41-0.88) |1.07 (0.33-4.02) |

|BP-BES vs PC-ZES |0.90 (0.66-1.23) |1.05 (0.74-1.47) |0.58 (0.45-0.75) |0.62 (0.32-1.15) |

|CoCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.80 (0.61-1.07) |0.88 (0.64-1.19) |0.56 (0.45-0.69) |0.25 (0.14-0.42) |

|PtCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.70 (0.43-1.18) |0.65 (0.34-1.20) |0.54 (0.33-0.89) |0.56 (0.14-2.14) |

|BP-BES vs Re-ZES |1.17 (0.80-1.66) |1.22 (0.83-1.78) |0.97 (0.67-1.42) |0.58 (0.16-1.74) |

|CoCr-EES vs Re-ZES |1.05 (0.77-1.37) |1.02 (0.74-1.40) |0.93 (0.68-1.28) |0.24 (0.07-0.62) |

|PtCr-EES vs Re-ZES |0.90 (0.62-1.31) |0.74 (0.46-1.27) |0.90 (0.59-1.38) |0.52 (0.17-1.49) |

|CoCr-EES vs BP-BES |0.90 (0.71-1.12) |0.84 (0.68-1.03) |0.95 (0.78-1.17) |0.41 (0.23-0.67) |

|PtCr-EES vs BP-BES |0.77 (0.48-1.24) |0.62 (0.33-1.12) |0.92 (0.56-1.52) |0.90 (0.25-3.46) |

|PtCr-EES vs CoCr-EES |0.86 (0.57-1.31) |0.74 (0.42-1.28) |0.97 (0.61-1.53) |2.24 (0.68-7.15) |

Statistically significant comparisons are highlighted in bold. BP-BES denotes bioabsorbable biolimus-eluting stents; BMS denotes bare metal stent stents; PES denotes paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES denotes sirolimus-eluting stents; PC-ZES denotes phosphorylcholine polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent; Re-ZES denotes Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES denotes cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES denotes platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; def/prob denotes definite probable; ST denotes stent thrombosis; OR denotes odds ratio; CI denotes credible interval; MI denotes myocardial infarction; TVR denotes target vessel revascularisation.

Online Table 9: Sensitivity analysis showing estimates of risk between different stent types for 1-year clinical outcomes after excluding studies performed in Asia

| |1-year cardiac death/MI |1-year MI |1-year TVR |1-year definite ST |

| |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |

|PES vs BMS |0.86 (0.70-1.06) |0.81 (0.66-0.99) |0.39 (0.31-0.48) |0.72 (0.45-1.10) |

|SES vs BMS |0.69 (0.55-0.85) |0.68 (0.55-0.82) |0.30 (0.25-0.36) |0.60 (0.38-0.90) |

|PC-ZES vs BMS |0.91 (0.59-1.37) |0.78 (0.50-1.21) |0.53 (0.38-0.72) |1.16 (0.62-2.41) |

|Re-ZES vs BMS |0.58 (0.37-0.90) |0.53 (0.33-0.83) |0.30 (0.18-0.53) |1.61 (0.40-8.83) |

|BP-BES vs BMS |0.67 (0.49-0.90) |0.67 (0.48-0.92) |0.32 (0.22-0.45) |0.60 (0.29-1.14) |

|CoCr-EES vs BMS |0.61 (0.46-0.78) |0.52 (0.39-0.68) |0.28 (0.21-0.36) |0.23 (0.12-0.40) |

|PtCr-EES vs BMS |0.50 (0.22-1.09) |0.31 (0.11-0.81) |0.26 (0.11-0.60) |0.23 (0.03-1.57) |

|SES vs PES |0.80 (0.65-0.98) |0.83 (0.68-1.01) |0.78 (0.64-0.94) |0.84 (0.54-1.30) |

|PC-ZES vs PES |1.05 (0.70-1.55) |0.96 (0.62-1.50) |1.36 (1.01-1.85) |1.60 (0.88-3.43) |

|Re-ZES vs PES |0.67 (0.43-1.02) |0.65 (0.42-1.01) |0.78 (0.46-1.36) |2.23 (0.58-12.32) |

|BP-BES vs PES |0.78 (0.57-1.04) |0.82 (0.60-1.13) |0.81 (0.57-1.17) |0.83 (0.41-1.66) |

|CoCr-EES vs PES |0.70 (0.55-0.87) |0.64 (0.50-0.81) |0.72 (0.56-0.92) |0.32 (0.18-0.55) |

|PtCr-EES vs PES |0.58 (0.25-1.24) |0.38 (0.14-1.00) |0.67 (0.30-1.54) |0.31 (0.04-2.24) |

|PC-ZES vs SES |1.31 (0.85-2.02) |1.14 (0.73-1.82) |1.75 (1.30-2.38) |1.91 (1.07-4.09) |

|Re-ZES vs SES |0.84 (0.54-1.30) |0.79 (0.49-1.22) |1.01 (0.59-1.75) |2.65 (0.68-14.87) |

|BP-BES vs SES |0.97 (0.73-1.28) |0.98 (0.73-1.33) |1.04 (0.75-1.47) |0.99 (0.53-1.83) |

|CoCr-EES vs SES |0.88 (0.68-1.11) |0.77 (0.58-1.00) |0.92 (0.72-1.18) |0.38 (0.21-0.66) |

|PtCr-EES vs SES |0.73 (0.31-1.58) |0.46 (0.17-1.20) |0.86 (0.38-1.98) |0.37 (0.05-2.66) |

|Re-ZES vs PC-ZES |0.64 (0.36-1.14) |0.69 (0.37-1.24) |0.57 (0.32-1.05) |1.40 (0.29-7.92) |

|BP-BES vs PC-ZES |0.74 (0.46-1.20) |0.86 (0.51-1.44) |0.60 (0.39-0.92) |0.52 (0.20-1.15) |

|CoCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.67 (0.43-1.05) |0.67 (0.40-1.07) |0.52 (0.37-0.76) |0.20 (0.08-0.41) |

|PtCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.55 (0.22-1.30) |0.40 (0.14-1.13) |0.49 (0.21-1.18) |0.19 (0.02-1.45) |

|BP-BES vs Re-ZES |1.15 (0.72-1.86) |1.25 (0.79-2.06) |1.04 (0.56-1.89) |0.37 (0.06-1.57) |

|CoCr-EES vs Re-ZES |1.05 (0.72-1.51) |0.98 (0.67-1.42) |0.91 (0.56-1.48) |0.14 (0.03-0.49) |

|PtCr-EES vs Re-ZES |0.87 (0.36-1.97) |0.58 (0.21-1.59) |0.86 (0.34-2.14) |0.14 (0.01-1.31) |

|CoCr-EES vs BP-BES |0.91 (0.67-1.21) |0.78 (0.57-1.06) |0.88 (0.61-1.28) |0.38 (0.18-0.79) |

|PtCr-EES vs BP-BES |0.75 (0.32-1.66) |0.46 (0.17-1.22) |0.83 (0.34-1.96) |0.38 (0.05-2.85) |

|PtCr-EES vs CoCr-EES |0.83 (0.37-1.74) |0.59 (0.23-1.50) |0.94 (0.43-2.06) |0.99 (0.15-6.49) |

Statistically significant comparisons are highlighted in bold. BP-BES denotes bioabsorbable biolimus-eluting stents; BMS denotes bare metal stent stents; PES denotes paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES denotes sirolimus-eluting stents; PC-ZES denotes phosphorylcholine polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent; Re-ZES denotes Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES denotes cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES denotes platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; def/prob denotes definite probable; ST denotes stent thrombosis; OR denotes odds ratio; CI denotes credible interval; MI denotes myocardial infarction; TVR denotes target vessel revascularisation.

Online Table 10: Sensitivity analysis showing estimates of risk between different stent types for 1-year clinical outcomes after excluding studies enrolling diabetic patients

| |1-year cardiac death/MI |1-year MI |1-year TVR |1-year definite ST |

| |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |OR (95% CI) |

|PES vs BMS |0.87 (0.72-1.04) |0.83 (0.69-1.01) |0.47 (0.38-0.58) |0.08 (0.53-1.15) |

|SES vs BMS |0.72 (0.60-0.87) |0.68 (0.57-0.83) |0.32 (0.26-0.39) |0.63 (0.43-0.89) |

|PC-ZES vs BMS |0.77 (0.59-1.02) |0.66 (0.48-0.89) |0.58 (0.42-0.79) |1.00 (0.58-1.73) |

|Re-ZES vs BMS |0.62 (0.43-0.90) |0.58 (0.38-0.86) |0.34 (0.19-0.57) |1.18 (0.37-4.47) |

|BP-BES vs BMS |0.72 (0.55-0.93) |0.69 (0.52-0.90) |0.33 (0.23-0.47) |0.65 (0.35-1.17) |

|CoCr-EES vs BMS |0.65 (0.53-0.80) |0.58 (0.46-0.74) |0.31 (0.24-0.40) |0.26 (0.16-0.43) |

|PtCr-EES vs BMS |0.55 (0.34-0.90) |0.44 (0.23-0.77) |0.30 (0.15-0.59) |0.58 (0.13-2.54) |

|SES vs PES |0.83 (0.71-0.97) |0.82 (0.70-0.95) |0.69 (0.57-0.83) |0.80 (0.54-1.18) |

|PC-ZES vs PES |0.89 (0.69-1.14) |0.79 (0.59-1.04) |1.23 (0.93-1.66) |1.26 (0.76-2.16) |

|Re-ZES vs PES |0.71 (0.50-1.03) |0.70 (0.47-1.03) |0.71 (0.42-1.22) |1.49 (0.47-5.56) |

|BP-BES vs PES |0.82 (0.64-1.06) |0.83 (0.64-1.08) |0.71 (0.50-1.00) |0.81 (0.44-1.53) |

|CoCr-EES vs PES |0.75 (0.62-0.90) |0.70 (0.57-0.87) |0.66 (0.51-0.84) |0.33 (0.20-0.53) |

|PtCr-EES vs PES |0.64 (0.40-1.03) |0.52 (0.29-0.91) |0.64 (0.33-1.25) |0.73 (0.16-3.22) |

|PC-ZES vs SES |1.07 (0.82-1.40) |0.97 (0.72-1.28) |1.79 (1.35-2.41) |1.59 (0.96-2.70) |

|Re-ZES vs SES |0.86 (0.61-1.23) |0.86 (0.57-1.25) |1.04 (0.62-1.76) |1.87 (0.60-6.97) |

|BP-BES vs SES |1.00 (0.79-1.25) |1.01 (0.79-1.29) |1.03 (0.75-1.41) |1.02 (0.59-1.80) |

|CoCr-EES vs SES |0.90 (0.76-1.07) |0.86 (0.70-1.05) |0.96 (0.76-1.20) |0.42 (0.26-0.66) |

|PtCr-EES vs SES |0.77 (0.48-1.24) |0.64 (0.35-1.11) |0.93 (0.48-1.81) |0.92 (0.21-3.93) |

|Re-ZES vs PC-ZES |0.80 (0.53-1.26) |0.89 (0.56-1.40) |0.58 (0.32-1.04) |1.20 (0.35-4.64) |

|BP-BES vs PC-ZES |0.93 (0.66-1.30) |1.05 (0.74-1.52) |0.57 (0.38-0.87) |0.65 (0.31-1.33) |

|CoCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.84 (0.62-1.15) |0.89 (0.64-1.24) |0.53 (0.38-0.75) |0.26 (0.13-0.49) |

|PtCr-EES vs PC-ZES |0.72 (0.42-1.23) |0.66 (0.35-1.24) |0.52 (0.26-1.05) |0.58 (0.12-2.63) |

|BP-BES vs Re-ZES |1.15 (0.78-1.69) |1.19 (0.80-1.79) |0.99 (0.56-1.75) |0.55 (0.14-1.80) |

|CoCr-EES vs Re-ZES |1.05 (0.77-1.42) |1.01 (0.72-1.42) |0.92 (0.57-1.47) |0.22 (0.07-0.62) |

|PtCr-EES vs Re-ZES |0.90 (0.60-1.34) |0.75 (0.44-1.25) |0.90 (0.49-1.64) |0.48 (0.13-1.65) |

|CoCr-EES vs BP-BES |0.91 (0.71-1.15) |0.85 (0.68-1.06) |0.93 (0.67-1.29) |0.41 (0.21-0.76) |

|PtCr-EES vs BP-BES |0.77 (0.47-1.28) |0.63 (0.34-1.13) |0.91 (0.45-1.82) |0.89 (0.19-4.06) |

|PtCr-EES vs CoCr-EES |0.86 (0.55-1.33) |0.74 (0.43-1.26) |0.97 (0.53-1.81) |2.18 (0.55-8.86) |

Statistically significant comparisons are highlighted in bold. BP-BES denotes bioabsorbable biolimus-eluting stents; BMS denotes bare metal stent stents; PES denotes paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES denotes sirolimus-eluting stents; PC-ZES denotes phosphorylcholine polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent; Re-ZES denotes Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES denotes cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES denotes platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; def/prob denotes definite probable; ST denotes stent thrombosis; OR denotes odds ratio; CI denotes credible interval; MI denotes myocardial infarction; TVR denotes target vessel revascularisation.

Online Figure Legends

Online Figure 1: Flow diagram of the study. Caption: 89 randomized controlled trials with 85,490 patients were included in the network meta-analysis.

Online Figure 2: Time related differences in stent thrombosis between different stent types determined by the network meta-analysis for (A) early definite stent thrombosis; (B) late definite stent thrombosis; (C) very late definite stent thrombosis; (D) early definite probable stent thrombosis; (E) late definite probable stent thrombosis; and (F) very late definite probable stent thrombosis. Caption: BP-BES denotes bioabsorbable polymer biolimus-eluting stents; PES denotes paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES denotes sirolimus-eluting stents; BMS denotes bare metal stents; PC-ZES denotes phosphorylcholine polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents; CoCr-EES denotes cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES denotes platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; Re-ZES denotes Resolute zotarolimus eluting stents. Only statistically significant differences are shown.

Online Figure 3: Funnel plot of randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis for the risk of: (A) 1-year cardiac death and myocardial infarction; (B) 1-year myocardial infarction; (C) 1-year target vessel revascularization; and (D) 1-year definite stent thrombosis. Caption: BP-BES denotes bioabsorbable polymer biolimus-eluting stents; PES denotes paclitaxel-eluting stents; SES denotes sirolimus-eluting stents; BMS denotes bare metal stents; CoCr-EES denotes cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents; PtCr-EES denotes platinum-chromium everolimus eluting stent; Re-ZES denotes the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; PC-ZES denotes phosphorylcholine polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Online Figure 1

[pic]

Online Figure 2A

[pic]

Online Figure 2B

[pic]

Online Figure 2C

[pic]

Online Figure 2D

[pic]

Online Figure 2E

[pic]

Online Figure 2F

[pic]

Online Figure 3A

[pic]

Online Figure 3B

[pic]

Online Figure 3C

[pic]

Online Figure 3D

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download