CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations Coronary Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in China: 10-Year Results From the China PEACE-Retrospective CathPCI Study Incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in a large cohort of all-comers undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Comparison of five contrast media Clinical Practice Guideline for Screening and Management of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents Clinical Implications of Periprocedural Myocardial Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion: Role of Antegrade and Retrograde Crossing Techniques Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016
|<<... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ...>>|

Review ArticleVolume 69, Issue 25, June 2017, Pages 3055-3066

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents

S Sorrentino , G Giustino, GD Dangas et al Keywords: bioresorbable vascular scaffold; everolimus-eluting

ABSTRACT


Background - Recent evidence suggests that bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are associated with an excess of thrombotic complications compared with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES).


Objectives - This study sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved BVS versus metallic EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at longest available follow-up.


Methods - The authors searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and web sources for randomized trials comparing BVS and EES. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion failure and definite or probable stent thrombosis, respectively.


Results - Seven trials were included: in sum, 5,583 patients were randomized to receive either the study BVS (n = 3,261) or the EES (n = 2,322). Median time of follow-up was 2 years (range 2 to 3 years). Compared with metallic EES, risk of target lesion failure (9.6% vs. 7.2%; absolute risk difference: +2.4%; risk ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.59; number needed to harm: 41; p = 0.003; I2 = 0%) and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 0.7%; absolute risk difference: +1.7%; risk ratio: 3.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.87 to 5.30; number needed to harm: 60; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) were both significantly higher with BVS. There were no significant differences in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality between groups. The increased risk for ST associated with BVS was concordant across the early (<30 days), late (30 days to 1 year), and very late (>1 year) periods (pinteraction = 0.49).


Conclusions - Compared with metallic EES, the BVS appears to be associated with both lower efficacy and higher thrombotic risk over time. (Bioresorbable vascular scaffold compare to everolimus stents in long term follow up; CRD42017059993).


>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top