Key result
The novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold demonstrated a significantly lower 3-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to the everolimus-eluting scaffold (6.1% vs. 17.3%, p=0.02).
Why the study?
Elevated adverse event risks led to the withdrawal of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds, and comparative data between different bioresorbable vascular scaffolds are lacking.
Does novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold reduce 3-year MACE in patients undergoing PCI for coronary heart disease compared to everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold?
Observational (n=196)
No
Does novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold reduce 3-year MACE in patients undergoing PCI for coronary heart disease compared to everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.1% vs 17.3%
p-value: p=0.02
In a real-world propensity-matched cohort, novolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds demonstrated significantly lower 3-year MACE and scaffold thrombosis rates compared to everolimus-eluting scaffolds.
Should not yet change scaffold selection; leaves open randomized confirmation of lower MACE with novolimus-eluting devices.
INTRODUCTION: Elevated risk of adverse events in comparison to metallic stents resulted in withdrawal of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (eBVS), known as the most intensively studied BVS. There is a paucity of data comparing the two different BVS. AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of the novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (nBVS) compared with eBVS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with nBVS or eBVS in our center were screened. The primary outcome was the 3-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: log-rank = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed that the 3-year event risk was lower for nBVS compared to eBVS. More evidence is needed to evaluate long-term performance of novolimus-eluting biovascular platforms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çakal et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=196). Novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (nBVS) vs. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (eBVS) was evaluated on 3-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and target-lesion revascularization (TLR) (p=0.02). The novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold demonstrated a significantly lower 3-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to the everolimus-eluting scaffold (6.1% vs. 17.3%, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: