Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

In the present multicenter randomized trial, BVS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb BVS] System in Chinese Population-ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT]; NCT01923740).

Occurrence and management of bioresorbable vascular scaffold failure in real-life studies

“…Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials compared it to the bestin-class everolimus-eluting stent (EES), namely Xience (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, USA). These trials confirmed the preliminary results from the prospective registries by showing comparable clinical outcome between the BVS and the EES at short term follow up (2,3). With the extended follow up and real world implantation of the scaffold, we started to face a new entity, which is "BVS failure".…”

Overlapping meta-analyses of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: bringing clarity or confusion?

“…This resulted into a smaller sample size than ABSORB 3 (N=480), but nonusable conclusions at the clinical level. The difference in 1-year in-segment late lumen loss was 0.06 mm (0.19±0.38 mm in the BVS group and 0.13±0.38 mm in the EES group), and the upper bound of the confidence interval was just 1 mm below the non-inferiority threshold (7). ABSORB Japan used a wide non-inferiority margin for the difference in 1-year TLF (8.6%), based on an agreement with the Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Agency, which resulted in a small sample size (N=400).…”

Effectiveness and safety of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

“…After a first evaluation of titles and abstracts 38 records were screened and 26 of these were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria and 6 because they were duplicate ( Figure 1). A total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), one of which was added after the publication in March 2017 (AIDA trial) (25). We also decided to use the data at two years, recently published in clinicaltrial.org for ABSORB III trial (26).…”