What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Meta-Analysis. Population: percutaneous coronary intervention. Intervention: coronary bioadaptor vs. drug-eluting stents (DES). Primary outcome: target-lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularisation at 1 year.

What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bioadaptor versus drug-eluting stents during coronary interventions.

May 8, 2026Open Access

A Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis of Bioadaptor Versus Drug‐Eluting Stents in Randomised Trials With Exploratory Single‐Arm Landmark Analyses

Key Result

The coronary bioadaptor showed no significant differences in safety and efficacy outcomes compared to drug-eluting stents.

Key Points

This research aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bioadaptor versus drug-eluting stents during coronary interventions.
Conducted a meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
Searched multiple databases for randomized trials studying clinical outcomes after bioadaptor implantation.
Estimated event rates using generalized linear mixed-effects models for primary and secondary outcomes.
No significant differences in safety or efficacy between bioadaptor (74.2% event rate) and drug-eluting stents at one year.
Overall low late event rates were observed in both groups during the 6-12 and 6-24 month analyses.
Findings are exploratory, indicating the need for further randomized trials.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis

Structured PICO

Does coronary bioadaptor reduce target-lesion failure compared to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?

Population

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Intervention

Coronary bioadaptor

Comparator

Drug-eluting stents (DES)

Outcome

Target-lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularisation at 1 yearcomposite

A meta-analysis of randomized trials found no significant differences in safety and efficacy outcomes between coronary bioadaptors and drug-eluting stents.

Limitations

Single-arm landmark analyses findings should be interpreted as exploratory.

Abstract

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.