Key result
Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds demonstrated similar 5-year in-stent late lumen loss (0.50 mm) compared to everolimus- and biolimus-eluting stents (0.58 mm, p=0.20).
Why the study?
To compare 5-year angiographic, optical coherence tomography, and clinical outcomes between patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and drug-eluting stents.
Does the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds compared to drug-eluting stents improve 5-year angiographic, OCT, and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary stenting?
RCT (n=240)
Single-blind
1:1:1
No
Does the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds compared to drug-eluting stents improve 5-year angiographic, OCT, and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary stenting?
At 5-year follow-up, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds showed similar angiographic and clinical outcomes compared to drug-eluting stents, with complete strut resorption observed on OCT, though the study was underpowered for these endpoints.
AIMS: To compare 5-year angiographic, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and clinical outcomes between patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: The EverBio-2 trial (Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold) was a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial in which 240 patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to BVS, everolimus-eluting (EES) or biolimus-eluting (BES) DES. Clinical follow-up was scheduled up to 5 years. All patients, alive and who did not have repeat revascularization of the target lesion during follow-up were asked to return for angiographic follow-up at 5 years. RESULTS: Five-year angiographic follow-up was completed in 122 patients (51%) and OCT analysis was performed in 86 (36%) patients. In-stent late lumen loss was similar in both groups with 0.50 ± 0.38 mm in BVS versus 0.58 ± 0.36 mm in EES/BES, p = 0.20. Clinical follow-up was complete in 232 patients (97%) at 5 years. The rate of the device-oriented endpoint was 22% in the BVS and 18% in the EES/BES group (p = 0.49). The patient-oriented composite endpoint occurred in 40% of BVS- and 43% of EES/BES-treated patients (p = 0.72) at 5 years. No acute coronary syndrome due to stent thrombosis was detected after 2 years. Complete BVS strut resorption was observed at 5 years in the OCT subgroup. CONCLUSION: Five-year clinical outcomes were similar between BVS and DES patients as well as angiographic outcomes in a selected subgroup. However, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn because the EverBio-2 trial was not powered for clinical and angiographic endpoints at 5 years of follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schukraft et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease (n=240). Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) vs. Everolimus-eluting (EES) or biolimus-eluting (BES) stents was evaluated on In-stent late lumen loss at 5 years (p=0.20). Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds demonstrated similar 5-year in-stent late lumen loss (0.50 mm) compared to everolimus- and biolimus-eluting stents (0.58 mm, p=0.20).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: