In this preliminary report of a trial involving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel failure between the patients who received a bioresorbable scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow-up. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; AIDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01858077 .).

The use of the Absorb BVS in a cohort reflecting daily clinical practice is feasible and associated with good procedural safety and angiographic success rate. In addition, six-month follow-up is associated with acceptable clinical outcomes.

The AIDA trial will provide the first randomized direct comparison between the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention practice.

AIDA formally met its criterion for non-inferiority of Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in terms of the combined endpoint of TVF. The Absorb BVS, however, was associated with higher rates of scaffold thrombosis and target vessel myocardial infarction at complete two-year follow-up.

Introduction of the Navvus microcatheter leads to clinically relevant stenosis severity overestimation in intermediate stenosis.

In AIDA, lesions that underwent scaffold implantation according to an optimised Absorb BVS implantation technique did not have lower rates of ScT and TLR compared to scaffold-treated lesions that did not meet PSP criteria.

No abstract

AimsMid- and long-term safety and efficacy of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) have been studied in randomised trials; however, most were not individually powered for clinical endpoints. We performed a weighted meta-analysis comparing mid- and long-term outcomes in patients treated with the BVS compared with the Xience metallic stent.Methods and resultsRandomised trials comparing the BVS and Xience were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference abstracts. Seven trials were included (BVS n = 3258, Xience n = 2319) with follow-up between 1–3 years. The primary outcome of target lesion failure occurred more frequently in BVS compared with Xience [OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.11–1.62, p = 0.003]. Overall definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with the BVS [OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.88–4.36, p < 0.001] and this extended beyond 1 year of follow-up [OR 4.13; 95% CI 1.99–8.57, p < 0.001]. Clinically indicated or ischaemia driven target lesion revascularisation [OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11–1.83, p = 0.005] and myocardial infarction (all MI) [OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.20–2.23, p = 0.002] were more frequently seen in the BVS compared with Xience. Rates of target vessel failure [OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91–1.46, p = 0.25] and cardiac death [OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.57–1.46, p = 0.71] were not significantly different between BVS and Xience.ConclusionThis meta-analysis shows a higher rate of target lesion failure and an almost threefold higher rate of device thrombosis in BVS compared with Xience, which extends beyond the first year. Device thrombosis did not lead to an overall increased (cardiac) mortality.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s12471-017-1008-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.