Literature DB >> 26330419

A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan.

Takeshi Kimura1, Ken Kozuma2, Kengo Tanabe3, Sunao Nakamura4, Masahisa Yamane5, Toshiya Muramatsu6, Shigeru Saito7, Junji Yajima8, Nobuhisa Hagiwara9, Kazuaki Mitsudo10, Jeffrey J Popma11, Patrick W Serruys12, Yoshinobu Onuma13, Shihwa Ying14, Sherry Cao14, Peter Staehr14, Wai-Fung Cheong14, Hajime Kusano14, Gregg W Stone15.   

Abstract

AIMS: Theoretically, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) may provide superior long-term results compared with permanent metallic drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, whether BVSs are as safe and effective as metallic DESs prior to complete bioresorption is unknown. METHODS AND
RESULTS: ABSORB Japan was a single-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, randomized trial designed to support regulatory approval of the Absorb BVS in Japan. Eligible patients with one or two de novo lesions in different epicardial vessels were randomized at 38 Japanese sites in a 2:1 ratio to Absorb BVS vs. cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EESs). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure [TLF: a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction attributable to target vessel, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR)] at 12 months, powered for non-inferiority. The major secondary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 13 months. A total of 400 patients were randomized to BVSs (266 patients and 275 lesions) or CoCr-EESs (134 patients and 137 lesions). TLF through 12 months was 4.2% with BVSs and 3.8% with CoCr-EESs [difference (upper one-sided 95% confidence limit) = 0.39% (3.95%); Pnon-inferiority < 0.0001]. Definite/probable stent/scaffold thrombosis at 12 months occurred in 1.5% of the patients with both devices (P = 1.0), and ID-TLR for restenosis was infrequent (1.1% with BVSs and 1.5% with CoCr-EESs, P = 1.0). With 96.0% angiographic follow-up, in-segment LLL at 13 months was 0.13 ± 0.30 mm with BVSs and 0.12 ± 0.32 mm with CoCr-EESs [difference (upper one-sided 95% confidence limit) = 0.01 (0.07); Pnon-inferiority < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: In the ABSORB Japan randomized trial, 12-month clinical and 13-month angiographic outcomes of BVSs were comparable to CoCr-EESs. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844284. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
© The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioresorbable scaffold; Coronary stent; Restenosis; Thrombosis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26330419     DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J        ISSN: 0195-668X            Impact factor:   29.983


  44 in total

1.  Interventional cardiology: Absorbable scaffolds noninferior to metallic stents at 1 year.

Authors:  Robert Phillips
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 2.  The Current Literature on Bioabsorbable Stents: a Review.

Authors:  Wally A Omar; Dharam J Kumbhani
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 5.113

Review 3.  Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Ashwin Nathan; Taisei Kobayashi; Daniel M Kolansky; Robert L Wilensky; Jay Giri
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  A head to head comparison of XINSORB bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold versus metallic sirolimus-eluting stent: 180 days follow-up in a porcine model.

Authors:  Li Shen; Yizhe Wu; Lei Ge; Yaojun Zhang; Qibing Wang; Juying Qian; Zhifen Qiu; Junbo Ge
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Overlapping implantation of bioresorbable novolimus-eluting scaffolds: an observational optical coherence tomography study.

Authors:  Florian Blachutzik; Niklas Boeder; Jens Wiebe; Alessio Mattesini; Oliver Dörr; Astrid Most; Timm Bauer; Monique Tröbs; Jens Röther; Christian Schlundt; Stephan Achenbach; Christian Hamm; Holger Nef
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 6.  A review of bioresorbable scaffolds: hype or hope?

Authors:  Huay Cheem Tan; Rajiv Ananthakrishna
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 1.858

7.  Bioresorbable scaffolds and drug-eluting balloons for the management of spontaneous coronary artery dissections.

Authors:  Vasileios F Panoulas; Alfonso Ielasi
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.895

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

Authors:  Davide Capodanno
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 9.  Bioresorbable Stents in PCI.

Authors:  Daniel Lindholm; Stefan James
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.931

10.  Time-Varying Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold During 5-Year Follow-up: A Systematic Meta-analysis and Individual Patient Data Pooled Study.

Authors:  Gregg W Stone; Takeshi Kimura; Runlin Gao; Dean J Kereiakes; Stephen G Ellis; Yoshinobu Onuma; Bernard Chevalier; Charles Simonton; Ovidiu Dressler; Aaron Crowley; Ziad A Ali; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 14.676

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.