CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

推荐文献

Abstract

Recommended Article

Better Prognosis After Complete Revascularization Using Contemporary Coronary Stents in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Optimal Stenting Technique for Complex Coronary Lesions Intracoronary Imaging-Guided Pre-Dilation, Stent Sizing, and Post-Dilation Cardiovascular Biomarkers and Imaging in Older Adults: JACC Council Perspectives Frequency, Regional Variation, and Predictors of Undetermined Cause of Death in Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials: A Pooled Analysis of 9259 Deaths in 9 Trials Development and validation of a simple risk score to predict 30-day readmission after percutaneous coronary intervention in a cohort of medicare patients Derivation and Validation of a Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion Intervention Procedural Success Score From the 20,000-Patient EuroCTO Registry：The EuroCTO (CASTLE) Score Discharge Against Medical Advice After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States A VOYAGER Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Statin Therapy on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Triglyceride Levels in Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia
|<<... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ...>>|

Review ArticleVolume 69, Issue 25, June 20, 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