CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research Influence of LDL-Cholesterol Lowering on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Coronary Revascularization Effect of a Home-Based Wearable Continuous ECG Monitoring Patch on Detection of Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation The mSToPS Randomized Clinical Trial Qualitative Methodology in Cardiovascular Outcomes Research: A Contemporary Look Syncope After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Percutaneous coronary intervention using a combination of robotics and telecommunications by an operator in a separate physical location from the patient: an early exploration into the feasibility of telestenting (the REMOTE-PCI study) 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology Screening for Atrial Fibrillation With Electrocardiography US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

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).