Why the study?
Should bioresorbable scaffolds be preferred over conventional drug-eluting stents in clinical practice?
Should bioresorbable scaffolds be preferred over conventional drug-eluting stents in clinical practice?
Bioresorbable scaffolds are currently not recommended over conventional drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention due to inferior mid-term outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Bioresorbable scaffolds should not be preferred over drug-eluting stents; confirms inferior 2-3 year outcomes and formalizes guideline-directed practice.
A previous Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) provided a report on recommendations for the non-clinical and clinical evaluation of coronary stents. Following dialogue with the European Commission, the Task Force was asked to prepare an additional report on the class of devices known as bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). Five BRS have CE-mark approval for use in Europe. Only one device -the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold- has published randomized clinical trial data and this data show inferior outcomes to conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) at 2-3 years. For this reason, at present BRS should not be preferred to conventional DES in clinical practice. The Task Force recommends that new BRS devices should undergo systematic non-clinical testing according to standardized criteria prior to evaluation in clinical studies. A clinical evaluation plan should include data from a medium sized, randomized trial against DES powered for a surrogate end point of clinical efficacy. Manufacturers of successful devices receive CE- mark approval for use and must have an approved plan for a large-scale randomized clinical trial with planned long-term follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Byrne et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: