Matteo Serenelli1, Simone Biscaglia1, Elisabetta Tonet1, Arnaldo Poli2, Elisa Nicolini3, Alfonso Ielasi4, Andrea Erriquez1, Gianluca Campo1,5. 1. Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy. 2. Unità di Cardiologia, ASST Milanese Ovest, Ospedale di Legnano, Milano, Italy. 3. Unità di Emodinamica, Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Ancona, Italy. 4. U.O.C. Cardiologia, Azienda Ospedaliera Bolognini Seriate, Bergamo, Italy. 5. Maria Cecilia Hospital, GVM Care & Research, Cotignola, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate how the 3-year results from the "A clinical evaluation to compare the safety, efficacy and performance of ABSORB everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) system against XIENCE everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of subjects with ischemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions" (ABSORB II) trial have influenced clinical practice among Italian interventional cardiologists. METHODS: We performed a survey among 95 interventional cardiologists sending a brief questionnaire by electronic mail. We collected 65 replies and analysed the data. RESULTS: The opinion of the operators regarding the two main endpoints of the study ABSORB II was conflicting. However, 66% of the operators considered at least one of the two co-primary endpoints (late lumen loss or vasomotion) unreliable and not reflecting clinical practice. Asking about an explanation for the negative results of the study, we found that the 91% of the operators considered the implantation technique the main limit of the ABSORB II. Furthermore, 74% of the operators affirmed that the results from the study did not decrease the number of scaffold implanted in their cath-lab. CONCLUSIONS: Absorb II trial did not influence clinical practice among Italian interventional cardiologists mainly due to the overall idea that the co-primary endpoints were not adequate to provide a robust evidence on device clinical safety and also because the lack of experience on device implantation may have influenced the outcomes.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate how the 3-year results from the "A clinical evaluation to compare the safety, efficacy and performance of ABSORB everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) system against XIENCE everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of subjects with ischemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions" (ABSORB II) trial have influenced clinical practice among Italian interventional cardiologists. METHODS: We performed a survey among 95 interventional cardiologists sending a brief questionnaire by electronic mail. We collected 65 replies and analysed the data. RESULTS: The opinion of the operators regarding the two main endpoints of the study ABSORB II was conflicting. However, 66% of the operators considered at least one of the two co-primary endpoints (late lumen loss or vasomotion) unreliable and not reflecting clinical practice. Asking about an explanation for the negative results of the study, we found that the 91% of the operators considered the implantation technique the main limit of the ABSORB II. Furthermore, 74% of the operators affirmed that the results from the study did not decrease the number of scaffold implanted in their cath-lab. CONCLUSIONS: Absorb II trial did not influence clinical practice among Italian interventional cardiologists mainly due to the overall idea that the co-primary endpoints were not adequate to provide a robust evidence on device clinical safety and also because the lack of experience on device implantation may have influenced the outcomes.
Authors: Patrick W Serruys; Yoshinobu Onuma; Dariusz Dudek; Pieter C Smits; Jacques Koolen; Bernard Chevalier; Bernard de Bruyne; Leif Thuesen; Dougal McClean; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Stephan Windecker; Robert Whitbourn; Ian Meredith; Cecile Dorange; Susan Veldhof; Karine Miquel Hebert; Krishnankutty Sudhir; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; John A Ormiston Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Joanna J Wykrzykowska; Robin P Kraak; Sjoerd H Hofma; Rene J van der Schaaf; E Karin Arkenbout; Alexander J IJsselmuiden; Joëlle Elias; Ivo M van Dongen; Ruben Y G Tijssen; Karel T Koch; Jan Baan; M Marije Vis; Robbert J de Winter; Jan J Piek; Jan G P Tijssen; Jose P S Henriques Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Corrado Tamburino; Azeem Latib; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Manel Sabate; Julinda Mehilli; Tommaso Gori; Stephan Achenbach; Manuel Pan Alvarez; Holger Nef; Maciej Lesiak; Carlo Di Mario; Antonio Colombo; Christoph K Naber; Giuseppe Caramanno; Piera Capranzano; Salvatore Brugaletta; Salvatore Geraci; Aleksander Araszkiewicz; Alessio Mattesini; Stylianos A Pyxaras; Lukasz Rzeszutko; Rafalo Depukat; Roberto Diletti; Els Boone; Davide Capodanno; Dariusz Dudek Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Robin P Kraak; Mariëlla E C J Hassell; Maik J Grundeken; Karel T Koch; Jose P S Henriques; Jan J Piek; Jan Baan; Marije M Vis; E Karin Arkenbout; Jan G P Tijssen; Robbert J de Winter; Joanna J Wykrzykowska Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Milosz Jaguszewski; Jelena-Rima Ghadri; Manuel Zipponi; Dana Roxana Bataiosu; Johanna Diekmann; Verena Geyer; Catharina Anna Neumann; Mia Aurelia Huber; Christian Hagl; Paul Erne; Thomas F Lüscher; Christian Templin Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-08-31 Impact factor: 5.460