Key result
Coronary bioadaptor shows no benefit over DES for safety and efficacy outcomes.
Why the study?
Late adverse events continue beyond the first year with last-generation DES, whereas the coronary bioadaptor represents a new approach featuring uncaging beginning around 6 months.
Does coronary bioadaptor reduce target-lesion failure compared to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Meta-Analysis
Does coronary bioadaptor reduce target-lesion failure compared to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
A meta-analysis of randomized trials found no significant differences in safety and efficacy outcomes between coronary bioadaptors and drug-eluting stents.
Bioadaptor matches DES safety and efficacy at 1 year; leaves open potential late benefit from uncaging, pending longer randomised trials.[[1]](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.
BACKGROUND: Late adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention continue to occur beyond the first year with last-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). The coronary bioadaptor marks a new approach with an uncaging beginning at approximately 6 months after implantation. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis of bioadaptor versus DES in randomised trials with complementary single-arm 6-12 and 6-24 landmark analyses. METHODS: The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and Google Scholar were searched for studies reporting clinical outcomes after bioadaptor implantation. The primary outcome was target-lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularisation at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were TLF and individual components at landmark intervals 6-12 and 6-24 months. Single-arm pooled event rates and pairwise comparisons were estimated using generalised linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: = 74.2%) from 6 to 24 months. Event rates for other endpoints were generally low. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in safety and efficacy outcomes were observed between bioadaptor and DES. Complementary single-arm landmark analyses suggested low late event rates, but these findings should be interpreted as exploratory. Further randomised trials are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wölbert et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in percutaneous coronary intervention. coronary bioadaptor vs. drug-eluting stents (DES) was evaluated on target-lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularisation at 1 year. The coronary bioadaptor showed no significant differences in safety and efficacy outcomes compared to drug-eluting stents.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: