CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

推荐文献

Abstract

Recommended Article

State of the Art in Noninvasive Imaging of Ischemic Heart Disease and Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Women: Indications, Performance, and Limitations Prospective Elimination of Distal Coronary Sinus to Left Atrial Connection for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation (PRECAF) Randomized Controlled Trial Plaque progression assessed by a novel semi-automated quantitative plaque software on coronary computed tomography angiography between diabetes and non-diabetes patients: A propensity-score matching study Rare Genetic Variants Associated With Sudden Cardiac Death in Adults Effect of Aspirin on All-Cause Mortality in the Healthy Elderly A Randomized Trial to Assess Regional Left Ventricular Function After Stent Implantation in Chronic Total Occlusion The REVASC Trial European Bifurcation Club White Paper on Stenting Techniques for Patients With Bifurcated Coronary Artery Lesions Digital learning and the future cardiologist

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).