CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

推荐文献

Abstract

Recommended Article

2019 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular tachycardia The Task Force for the management of patients with supraventricular tachycardia of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): Developed in collaboration with the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC)he management of patients with) Long-Term Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantations for Myocardial Infarction Qualitative Methodology in Cardiovascular Outcomes Research: A Contemporary Look Major infections after bypass surgery and stenting for multivessel coronary disease in the randomised SYNTAX trial A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis A VOYAGER Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Statin Therapy on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Triglyceride Levels in Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia When high‐volume PCI operators in high‐volume hospitals move to lower volume hospitals—Do they still maintain high volume and quality of outcomes? Mechanisms and diagnostic evaluation of persistent or recurrent angina following percutaneous coronary revascularization

Clinical TrialVolume 11, Issue 3, February 2018

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents

YL Han, B Xu, NeoVas Randomized Controlled Trial Investigators Keywords: bioresorbable scaffolds; drug-eluting stent(s); randomized controlled trial;

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The authors sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the NeoVas bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) compared with metallic drug-eluting stents.



BACKGROUND -  BRS have the potential to improve very late outcomes compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, but some BRS have been associated with increased rates of device thrombosis before complete bioresorption. NeoVas is a new poly-L-lactic acid BRS that elutes sirolimus from a poly-D, L-lactide coating.



METHODS -  Eligible patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion with a reference vessel diameter 2.5 to 3.75 mm and a lesion length ≤20 mm were randomized 1:1 to NeoVas BRS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). Angiographic follow-up was performed in all patients at 1 year. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), and the major secondary endpoint was the rate of angina. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve were performed in a pre-specified subgroup of patients.



RESULTS -  The authors randomized 560 patients at 32 centers to treatment with NeoVas (n = 278) versus CoCr-EES (n = 282). One-year in-segment LL with NeoVas and CoCr-EES were 0.14 ± 0.36 mm versus 0.11 ± 0.34 mm (difference 0.03 mm; upper 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval 0.09 mm; pnoninferiority < 0.0001; psuperiority = 0.36). Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar in the 2 groups, as were the rates of recurrent angina (27.9% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.26). Optical coherence tomography at 1 year demonstrated a higher proportion of covered struts (98.7% vs. 96.2%; p < 0.001), less strut malapposition (0% vs. 0.6%; p <0.001), and a smaller minimal lumen area (4.71 ± 1.64 vs. 6.00 ± 2.15 mm2; p < 0.001) with NeoVas compared with CoCr-EES respectively, with nonsignificant differences in fractional flow reserve (0.89 ± 0.08 vs. 0.91 ± 0.06; p = 0.07).



CONCLUSIONS - The NeoVas BRS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of 1-year angiographic in-segment LL, and resulted in comparable 1-year clinical outcomes, including recurrent angina. (NeoVas Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT02305485)