CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Genetic dysregulation of endothelin-1 is implicated in coronary microvascular dysfunction Non-invasive detection of coronary inflammation using computed tomography and prediction of residual cardiovascular risk (the CRISP CT study): a post-hoc analysis of prospective outcome data Appropriate Use Criteria and Health Status Outcomes Following Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the OPEN-CTO Registry Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes From a Trial of Three Limus-Eluting Stents With Different Polymer Coatings in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis A Novel Familial Cardiac Arrhythmia Syndrome with Widespread ST-Segment Depression Impact of Coronary Lesion Complexity in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: One-Year Outcomes From the Large, Multicentre e-Ultimaster Registry Healthy Behavior, Risk Factor Control, and Survival in the COURAGE Trial

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).