Key result
BVS yields similar 12-month MACE rates in ACS compared to stable angina.
Why the study?
Robust data on the outcome of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation in the setting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is still scarce.
Does bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation yield similar 12-month clinical outcomes in ACS patients compared to stable angina patients?
Observational (n=351)
No
Does bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation yield similar 12-month clinical outcomes in ACS patients compared to stable angina patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.5% vs 5.3%
p-value: p=0.90
Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in ACS patients demonstrates similar one-year clinical outcomes compared to stable angina patients, though early scaffold thrombosis in ACS warrants caution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports comparable one-year BVS outcomes in ACS versus stable patients; leaves open questions on early thrombosis and long-term durability.
Felix et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Acute coronary syndrome vs stable angina (n=351). Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in ACS vs. BVS in stable angina/silent ischemia was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months (p=0.90). Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with ACS resulted in similar 12-month MACE rates compared to patients with stable angina (5.5% vs 5.3%; P=0.90).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: