Long-term outcome of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of RCTs
Why the study?
Do bioresorbable vascular scaffolds improve clinical outcomes compared to everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
Population
Patients with coronary artery disease
Comparison
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) vs Everolimus-eluting stents (EES)
Design
Meta-analysis
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May warrant preferring EES over BRS in CAD; challenges BRS equivalence at 2 years.
Structured PICO
Do bioresorbable vascular scaffolds improve clinical outcomes compared to everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
P
Population
Patients with coronary artery disease
I
Intervention
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS)
C
Comparator
Everolimus-eluting stents (EES)
O
Outcome
Two-years clinical outcomes
A meta-analysis suggests bioresorbable vascular scaffolds are associated with worse 2-year clinical outcomes compared to everolimus-eluting stents in CAD.
Cite This Study
Polimeni et al. (2017) studied this question.