Key result
BVS shows no difference in 3-year target lesion failure vs. EES, with higher thrombosis.
Why the study?
The ABSORB III trial previously demonstrated noninferior 1-year outcomes of BVS versus EES, but longer-term 3-year clinical outcomes were needed to assess safety and efficacy.
Does everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold reduce target lesion failure compared to cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=2,008)
randomized
Does everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold reduce target lesion failure compared to cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
At 3-year follow-up, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were associated with higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and device thrombosis compared to metallic everolimus-eluting stents.
BACKGROUND: The Absorb everolimus-eluting poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) provides early drug delivery and mechanical support functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents (DES), followed by complete bioresorption in approximately 3 years with recovery of vascular structure and function. The ABSORB III trial demonstrated noninferior rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TVMI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year in 2,008 patients with coronary artery disease randomized to BVS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess clinical outcomes through 3 years following BVS implantation. METHODS: Clinical outcomes from the ABSORB III trial were analyzed by randomized treatment assignment cumulative through 3 years, and between 1 and 3 years. RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure through 3 years occurred in 13.4% of BVS patients and 10.4% of EES patients (p = 0.06), and between 1 and 3 years in 7.0% versus 6.0% of patients, respectively (p = 0.39). TVMI through 3 years was increased with BVS (8.6% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.03), as was device thrombosis (2.3% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.01). In BVS-assigned patients, treatment of very small vessels (those with quantitatively determined reference vessel diameter <2.25 mm) was an independent predictor of 3-year TLF and scaffold thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: In the ABSORB III trial, 3-year adverse event rates were higher with BVS than EES, particularly TVMI and device thrombosis. Longer-term clinical follow-up is required to determine whether bioresorption of the polymeric scaffold will influence patient prognosis. (ABSORB III Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] [ABSORB-III]; NCT01751906).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kereiakes et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in coronary artery disease (n=2,008). Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) vs. Cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) was evaluated on Target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) through 3 years (p=0.06). Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds resulted in a 13.4% rate of target lesion failure at 3 years compared to 10.4% with everolimus-eluting stents (p=0.06), with higher rates of TVMI and thrombosis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: