Dataset Information

Three-year outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus second-generation drug-eluting stents: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) completely resorb within 3 years after placement into the coronary artery. The safety and effectiveness of bioabsorbable scaffolds are of critical importance during this 3-year period.

Objective

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of BVS and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 3 years after implantation.

Methods

Published randomized trials comparing BVS to second-generation DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were identified within PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and relevant Web sites with publication dates through June 2019. The primary efficacy endpoint was target lesion failure. The primary safety endpoint was definite/probable stent/scaffold thrombosis. Secondary outcomes were cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and a patient-oriented composite end point.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials, with a total of 5,412 patients (BVS n = 3,177; DES n = 2,235), were included. At 3 years, BVS was associated with higher rates of target lesion failure (OR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.10-1.60, P = 0.003) and definite/probable stent/scaffold thrombosis (OR = 3.75, 95% CI: 2.22-6.35, P < .00001)compared with DES. The incidence of target vessel myocardial infarction (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.30-2.17, P < .0001), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.14-1.86, P = .003), and the patient-oriented composite end point(OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04-1.39, P = .01) were higher for those treated with BVS compared with DES. However, there was no significant difference in risk of cardiac death (OR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.61-1.45, P = .79) between treatment groups.

Conclusions

At the 3-year follow-up, BVS was inferior to second-generation DES in both safety and efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Ke J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7402797 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Three-year outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus second-generation drug-eluting stents: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Ke Junsong J Zhang Hongyu H Huang Jun J Lv Ping P Chen Yun Y Xu Kai K Yang Wenxue W Tu Bangyan B

Medicine 20200701 31

<h4>Background</h4>Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) completely resorb within 3 years after placement into the coronary artery. The safety and effectiveness of bioabsorbable scaffolds are of critical importance during this 3-year period.<h4>Objective</h4>We performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of BVS and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 3 years after implantation.<h4>Methods</h4>Published randomized trials comparing BVS to second-generation DES for the ...[more]

PMID: 32756213

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) were designed to reduce the rate of late adverse events observed in conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) by dissolving once they have restored lasting patency.ObjectivesCompare the safety and efficacy of BVS versus DES in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease across a complete range of randomised controlled trial (RCT) follow-up intervals.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from inception through 5 January 2022 for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes of BVS versus DES. The primary safety outcome was stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST), and the primary efficacy outcome was target lesion failure (TLF: composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (ID-TLR)). Secondary outcomes were patient-oriented composite endpoint (combining all-death, all-MI and all-revascularisation), its individual components and those of TLF. Studies were appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan V.5.4.Results11 919 patients were randomised to receive either BVS (n=6438) or DES (n=5481) across 17 trials (differing follow-up intervals from 3 months to 5 years). BVS demonstrated increased risk of ST across all timepoints (peaking at 2 years with risk ratio (RR): 3.47; 95% CI 1.80 to 6.70; p=0.0002). Similarly, they showed increased risk of TLF (peaking at 3 years, RR: 1.35; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.70; p=0.01) resulting from high rates of TVMI and ID-TLR. Though improvements were observed after device dissolution (5-year follow-up), these were non-significant. All other outcomes were statistically equivalent. Applicability to all BVS is limited by 91% of the BVS group receiving Abbott's Absorb.ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates that current BVS are inferior to contemporary DES throughout the first 5 years at minimum.

Project description:BackgroundEverolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), which have the characteristics of scaffold absorption and vascular function recovery, are the latest innovation in the treatment of coronary artery disease. This new concept has become a hot topic in the field of interventional cardiology. Data regarding mid-term clinical outcomes of BVS in acute coronary syndromes are currently scarce. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare mid-term outcome data for BVS and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and relevant web sites for studies with a follow-up of ≥ 1 years that studied percutaneous coronary interventions with BVS vs second-generation DES in acute coronary syndromes. A meta-analysis was performed with the software RevMan following the standards of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0.ResultsFive studies, 2 randomized controlled trials, and 3 observational studies, with a total of 1758 patients (BVS n = 917; DES n = 841) and a median follow-up duration of 24 months, were included. BVS, when compared with DES, resulted in higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.12-3.64; P = .02) and stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST/ScT) (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.13-4.89, P = .02). When TLR due to device thrombosis were excluded, the difference in risk estimates between the 2 groups was no longer significant (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.73-3.82, P = .22). The risk for all-cause death (OR = 1.32 95% CI: 0.61-2.88, P = .48), cardiac death (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.58-2.86 P = .52), target vessel myocardial infarction (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 0.86-2.61, P = .15), and target lesion failure (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.76-2.35, P = .31) did not differ between BVS and DES groups.ConclusionAt mid-term follow-up, BVS had a higher risk of TLR and ST/ScT than the second-generation DES in patients with acute coronary syndromes. ST/ScT was the key factor indicating the decreased safety and effectiveness of BVS relative to DES.

Project description:BackgroundAbsorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce.AimsThis report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group.MethodsAIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT.ResultsUp to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p<0.001). DT between 3 and 4 years occurred six times in the Absorb arm versus three times in the XIENCE arm. Between 4 and 5 years, the incidence was three versus two, respectively. Of those three DT in the scaffold group, two occurred in XIENCE EES-treated lesions. The odds ratio of scaffold thrombosis in patients on DAPT compared to off DAPT throughout five-year follow-up was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.15-0.86).ConclusionsThe excess risk of the Absorb BVS on late adverse events, in particular device thrombosis, in routine PCI continues up to 4 years and seems to plateau afterwards. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01858077.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BRS with DES on clinical outcomes with at least 12 months follow-up. Electronic databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to 1 March 2022 were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome of this study was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Secondary outcomes were a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, all-cause death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) and the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization). The safety outcomes were definite/probable device thrombosis and adverse events.ResultsFour randomized clinical trials including 803 participants with a mean age of 60.5 ± 10.8 years were included in this analysis. Patients treated with BRS had a higher risk of the DOCE (RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02-2.57, P = 0.04) and MACE (RR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.02-3.08, P = 0.04) compared with patients treated with DES. No significant difference on the POCE (RR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.89-1.98, P = 0.16) and the definite/probable device thrombosis (RR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.46-3.77, P = 0.61) were observed between BRS and DES. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionBRS was associated with a higher risk of DOCE and MACE compared with DES in patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction. Although this seems less effective in preventing DOCE, BRS appears as safe as DES.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=321501], identifier [CRD 42022321501].

Dataset Information

Three-year outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus second-generation drug-eluting stents: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Three-year outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus second-generation drug-eluting stents: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets