Systematic Review
The failures of clinical trials for bioresorbable scaffolds may be driven by a misunderstanding of transient scaffolding pathology and reliance on statistically underpowered findings.
AIM: To statistically examine the released clinical trials and meta-analyses of polymeric bioresorbable scaffolds resuming the main accomplishments in the field with a translation to the routine clinical practice. METHODS: The statistical power in clinical trials such as ABSORB Japan, ABSORB China, EVERBIO II, AIDA, and few meta-analyses by the post hoc odds ratio-based sample size calculation, and the patterns of artery remodeling published in papers from ABSORB A and B trials were evaluated. RESULTS: no PSP 0.37) achieving 0.35 per 100 patient-years, which is comparable to the RR 0.49 with bare-metal stents and the RR 1.06 with everolimus DES. Both ABSORB II and ABSORB III trials were powered enough for a five-year follow-up, but the results were not entirely conclusive due to the mostly non-significant fashion of data. The powered meta-analyses were built mostly on statistically poor findings. CONCLUSION: The misunderstanding of the pathology of transient scaffolding drives the failures of the clinical trials. More bench studies of the vascular response are required. Several next-generation BVS including multifunctional electronic scaffold grant cardiology with a huge promise to make BVS technology great again.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
А. Н. Харламов (2018) conducted a systematic review in Coronary artery disease. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) vs. Metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) was evaluated on Target lesion failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: