Literature DB >> 26471805

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: ABSORB China Trial.

Runlin Gao1, Yuejin Yang2, Yaling Han3, Yong Huo4, Jiyan Chen5, Bo Yu6, Xi Su7, Lang Li8, Hai-Chien Kuo9, Shih-Wa Ying9, Wai-Fung Cheong9, Yunlong Zhang9, Xiaolu Su9, Bo Xu2, Jeffery J Popma10, Gregg W Stone11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is designed to achieve results comparable to metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year, with improved long-term outcomes. Whether the 1-year clinical and angiographic results of BVS are noninferior to current-generation drug-eluting stents has not been established.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the angiographic efficacy and clinical safety and effectiveness of BVS in a randomized trial designed to enable approval of the BVS in China.
METHODS: Eligible patients with 1 or 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized to BVS or cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by diabetes and the number of lesions treated. Angiographic and clinical follow-up were planned at 1 year in all patients. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), powered for noninferiority with a margin of 0.15 mm.
RESULTS: A total of 480 patients were randomized (241 BVS vs. 239 CoCr-EES) at 24 sites. Acute clinical device success (98.0% vs. 99.6%; p = 0.22) and procedural success (97.0% and 98.3%; p = 0.37) were comparable in BVS- and CoCr-EES-treated patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year was 0.19 ± 0.38 mm for BVS versus 0.13 ± 0.38 mm for CoCr-EES; the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.14 mm, achieving noninferiority of BVS compared with CoCr-EES (pnoninferiority = 0.01). BVS and CoCr-EES also had similar 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization; 3.4% vs. 4.2%, respectively; p = 0.62) and definite/probable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.0%, respectively; p = 1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: 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).
Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bioresorbable vascular scaffold; everolimus; randomized controlled trial; stent

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26471805     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  47 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  Advance for Cardiovascular Health in China.

Authors:  Yihua Bei; Chao Shi; Zhongrong Zhang; Junjie Xiao
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.132

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

Review 5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  Single or dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI.

Authors:  Yosuke Miyazaki; Pannipa Suwannasom; Yohei Sotomi; Mohammad Abdelghani; Karthik Tummala; Yuki Katagiri; Taku Asano; Erhan Tenekecioglu; Yaping Zeng; Rafael Cavalcante; Carlos Collet; Yoshinobu Onuma; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 32.419

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.