Key result
The ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold demonstrated a sustained low MACE rate of 3.4% at 4 years without late complications such as stent thrombosis.
Why the study?
Does the ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold provide sustained safety and low MACE rates at 4 years in patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion?
Cohort (n=30)
Does the ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold provide sustained safety and low MACE rates at 4 years in patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion?
The ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold demonstrates sustained safety with a low MACE rate of 3.4% and no stent thrombosis at 4 years.
Sustained low MACE without thrombosis supports further BVS evaluation in simple lesions; leaves open randomized comparisons versus metallic DES.
AIM: The first-in-man ABSORB Cohort A trial demonstrated the bioresorption of the ABSORB BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) at two years. This report describes the 4-year clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ABSORB Cohort A trial enrolled 30 patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion. Clinical follow-up was available in 29 patients since one patient withdrew consent after the six month follow-up. At four years, the hierarchical ID-MACE of 3.4% remained unchanged. Clopidogrel therapy had been discontinued in all patients. CONCLUSION: Four-year clinical results demonstrate a sustained low MACE rate (3.4%) without any late complications such as stent thrombosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dudek et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in de novo coronary artery disease (n=30). ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold was evaluated on hierarchical ID-MACE. The ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold demonstrated a sustained low MACE rate of 3.4% at 4 years without late complications such as stent thrombosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: