Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: Two-year clinical outcomes of the EVERBIO II trial

Ten-year clinical outcomes of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents vs. everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds-insights from the EVERBIO-2 trial

Background

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) have been developed as a potential solution to mitigate late complications associated with drug-eluting metallic stents (DESs) in percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease. While numerous studies have compared BVSs to DESs, none have assessed clinical outcomes beyond 5 years.

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the 10-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with BVSs vs. DESs.

Methods

The EverBio-2 trial (Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold) is a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 240 patients allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive BVSs, everolimus-eluting stents, or biolimus-eluting stents (BESs). Clinical follow-up was scheduled for 10 years.

Results

Clinical follow-up was completed in 222 patients (93%) at the 10-year mark. The rate of device-oriented composite events (DOCE) was 28% in the DES group and 29% in the BVS group (p = 0.72) at 10 years. Similarly, the rate of patient-oriented composite events (POCE) was 55% in the DES group and 49% in the BVS group (p = 0.43) at 10 years. Notably, the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) within the target vessel was 5% in the BVS group and 0% in the BES group (p = 0.04), while the rate of any MI was 10% in the BVS group and 2% in the BES group (p = 0.04). In addition, the rate of Academic Research Consortium (ARC) possible stent thrombosis was 3% in the BVS group and 0% in the DES group (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Over 10 years, the rates of clinical DOCE and POCE were similar between the BVS and DES groups but individual outcomes of stent thrombosis were higher (3%) in the BVS group compared to the DES group.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (NCT01711931).

Long-term outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

INTRODUCTION

The higher scaffold thrombosis rates observed with the first-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) compared to conventional drug-eluting stents were likely due in part to bioresorbable polymers having insufficient radial strength, necessitating larger strut profiles. Meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes from the first-generation Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) showed that this period of excess risk ended at 3 years. Therefore, current attention has been focused on improving early outcomes by increasing the scaffold's tensile strength and reducing strut thickness.

AREAS COVERED

This review summaries the lessons learned from the first-generation BRS. It updates the long-term clinical outcomes of trials evaluating the ABSORB BVS and metallic alloy-based BRS. In addition, it reviews the next-generation BRSs manufactured in Asia.

EXPERT OPINION

Critical areas to improve the performance and safety of biodegradable scaffolds include further development in material science, surface modification, delivery systems, and long-term follow-up studies.

Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

One million individuals in the USA die from acute myocardial infarction (MI), which currently affects 3 million people globally. The available data about the early and late outcomes of both biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents exhibit inconsistency. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with DP-DES.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were used to find out studies comparing BP-DES to DP-DES. All the analyses used the random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were incorporated in this meta-analysis that involved 28,874 patients, out of which 11,997 received the BP Stent, and the rest of 16,578 received the DP stent. Thorough analyses revealed that the risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in the BP-DES group (5.4% vs 2.7%) (RR 1.22, p 0.02) for two years or less than two-year follow-up. For studies with more than two years of follow-up, all-cause death was 9.07% (599/6603) in BP-DES and 9.47% (531/5602) in the DP-DES group but failed to achieve statistically significant levels (RR 0.97, p 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed no clinically significant (P value was > 0.05) differences in all-cause death, cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), late stent thrombosis, device-oriented composite endpoint/target lesion failure (DOCE/TLF), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), target vessel infarction (TVI) between BP-DES and DP-DES for more than two years of follow-up. Additionally, all-cause death was only outcomes which found to have a statistically significant difference for less than two years of follow-up, while remaining were statistically non-significant.

Biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stents versus contemporary drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

In spite of similar efficacy and safety in pilot studies, compared with the contemporary durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES), the bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stent (BP-DES) may be more superior in promoting blood vessel healing. We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting BP-DES (BP-EES) with contemporary DP-DES through a meta-analysis. We performed this meta-analysis to provide further evidence of the safety and efficacy of BP-EES. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing clinical efficacy and safety of BP-EES versus contemporary DP-DES. Fifteen RCTs with a total of 15,572 patients were selected. The rate of MACE was 9.4% in patients receiving BP-EES and 7.3% receiving DP-EES (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29, p = 0.05; I² = 46%). TLF and MI were also similar in both groups. Based on the available data, this review demonstrates that BP-EES displays a clinically comparable efficacy and safety profile to that of contemporary DP-DES at years of follow-up in patients undergoing PCI.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus conventional drug-eluting stents across time: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable 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.

OBJECTIVES

Compare 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.

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

11 919 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.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that current BVS are inferior to contemporary DES throughout the first 5 years at minimum.

Clinical presentation does not affect acute mechanical performance of the Novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold as assessed by optical coherence tomography

Introduction

Initial trials of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have mostly excluded patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, these patients might benefit from a BVS platform, in particular as they are often younger and have been less frequently treated than patients with chronic disease.

Aim

To compare the acute performance of a Novolimus eluting BVS in ACS and non-ACS patients using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients presenting with acute or chronic coronary syndrome.

Material and methods

The final OCT pullback of 79 patients (34 with ACS, 45 non-ACS) was analysed at 1-mm intervals. The following indices were calculated: mean and minimal area, residual area stenosis, incomplete strut apposition, tissue prolapse, eccentricity index, symmetry index, strut fracture, and edge dissection.

Results

OCT showed a minimum lumen area (non-ACS vs. ACS) of 6.2 ±2.1 vs. 5.6 ±1.5 mm² (p = 0.21). Mean residual area stenosis was 14.5% vs. 19.5% (p = 0.39). The mean eccentricity index did not differ significantly (0.78 ±0.13 vs. 0.78 ±0.06; p = 0.42). There was a non-significant tendency for more fractures in the non-ACS group (22.2% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.07). Prolapse area was comparable (4.4 ±7.4 mm² vs. 5.2 ±10.9 mm²; p = 0.62).

Conclusions

This is the first study to investigate the acute mechanical performance of a Novolimus-eluting BVS in patients with different clinical presentations using OCT. We found that clinical presentation did not determine acute mechanical performance as assessed by the final OCT pullback. There was evidence of more mechanical complications in terms of fractures and a higher percentage of incomplete strut apposition in the group of patients with chronic coronary syndrome.

Bioresorbable polymer and durable polymer metallic stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Literature on bioresorbable-polymer-stents (BPS) and second-generation durable-polymer-stents (DPS) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for all comer CAD is conflicting.

METHODS

Randomized controlled studies comparing PCI among BPS and second-generation DPS were identified up until May-2020 from online databases.  Primary outcomes included are all-cause myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac-death, target-vessel-revascularization (TVR), target-vessel MI (TVMI), and stent-thrombosis (ST). Random effect method of risk ratio and confidence interval of 95% was used.

RESULTS

25 prospective randomized controlled trials with 31,822 patients (BPS n = 17,065 and DPS n = 14,757) were included in the study. Follow-up ranged between a minimum of 6 months to more than 5 years. Cardiac death (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.45, p = 0.16) was comparable in BPS and second-generation DPS. Risk of all-cause MI was similar between BPS and DPS (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.11, p = 0.73). TVMI (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69-1.11, p = 0.33) and ST rates were also comparable in BPS and DPS groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.80-1.40, p = 1.00). Overall TVR had comparable outcomes between BPS and DPS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.14, p < 0.001); however, higher TVR was seen among BPS group at follow-up of ≥5 years (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.12-1.14, p = 0.02). Bias was low and heterogeneity was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing PCI treated with BPS had comparable outcomes in terms of cardiac death, TVR, ST, TVMI, and all-cause MI to patients treated with second-generation DPS; however, BPS had higher rates of TVR for follow-up of ≥5-years.

Poly (l-lactic acid) bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been proposed for overcoming the long-term limitations of permanent metallic stents, while theoretically warranting similar advantages in plaque stabilization and anti-restenotic drug delivery in the early postrevascularization phase. However, increased rates of malapposition, restenosis, or thrombosis have emerged from initial trials with BVS, that were nevertheless underpowered for the evaluation of the real outcome benefits of these coronary devices. The recent completion of newer randomized clinical trials paves the way to the present meta-analysis, aiming at the comparison of Poly (l-Lactic acid) BVS (PLLA-BVS) versus metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of coronary stenoses.

METHODS

Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing drug-eluting BVS versus metallic DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality, secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis and the composite of device-oriented target lesion failure (TLF).

RESULTS

We included 11 randomized trials, for a total population of 10,707 patients, 54.5% treated with BVS. The major indication for PCI was stable CAD, whereas acute coronary syndrome represented 30% of the patients. At a mean follow-up of 2.64 years (1-5 years), mortality occurred in 2.71% of the patients, with no difference according to the type of implanted stent (OR[95%CI] = 0.94 [0.74, 1.20], p = .62). No interaction was observed according to patients' risk profile or the rate of diabetes and ACS. However, a significant increase in myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, TLR and TLF was observed with BVS as compared to DES.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis provides the most updated data on the use of PLLA-BVS for the treatment of CAD. We documented a poorer performance of these new coronary devices, as compared to new generation metallic DES, being associated with an increased rate of recurrent cardiovascular events. However, such ischemic complications did not impact on mortality, with a comparable survival independently from the type of stent.

Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Current Technology and Future Perspectives

Metallic drug-eluting stents have led to significant improvements in clinical outcomes but are inherently limited by their caging of the vessel wall. Fully bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) have emerged in an effort to overcome these limitations, allowing a "leave nothing behind" approach. Although theoretically appealing, the initial experience with BRS technology was limited by increased rates of scaffold thrombosis compared with contemporary stents. This review gives a broad outline of the current BRS technologies and outlines the refinements in BRS design, procedural approach, lesion selection, and post-procedural care that resulted from early BRS trials.

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds-Dead End or Still a Rough Diamond?

Percutaneous coronary interventions with stent-based restorations of vessel patency have become the gold standard in the treatment of acute coronary states. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been designed to combine the efficiency of drug-eluting stents (DES) at the time of implantation and the advantages of a lack of foreign body afterwards. Complete resolution of the scaffold was intended to enable the restoration of vasomotor function and reduce the risk of device thrombosis. While early reports demonstrated superiority of BVS over DES, larger-scale application and longer observation exposed major concerns about their use, including lower radial strength and higher risk of thrombosis resulting in higher rate of major adverse cardiac events. Further focus on procedural details and research on the second generation of BVS with novel properties did not allow to unequivocally challenge position of DES. Nevertheless, BVS still have a chance to present superiority in distinctive indications. This review presents an outlook on the available first and second generation BVS and a summary of results of clinical trials on their use. It discusses explanations for unfavorable outcomes, proposed enhancement techniques and a potential niche for the use of BVS.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare long-term clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer and durable polymer drug-eluting stents

AIMS

The durable polymer (DP) of a drug-eluting stent (DES) serves no function once drug elution is complete. To ascertain the benefits of bioabsorbable polymer (BP) over DP-DESs requires a longer follow-up period, to overcome the time taken for polymer absorption. The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with the DP-DES over mid (2 years) to long-term (3-5 years) follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A thorough computer-based search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases. We only included randomized controlled studies comparing clinical outcomes between BP-DESs and DP-DESs. Only studies where data were available for a minimum of 2 years were included. A separate analysis of 2-year outcomes and 3- to 5-year outcomes were conducted. Data from 6 and 8 studies were included in 3- to 5-year and 2-year follow-up, respectively. There were no differences between stent groups in cardiac mortality, stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization, target vessel failure, and reinfarction rates for either 2-year or 3- to 5-year follow-up. Subgroup analysis according to strut thickness (<100 µm, >100 µm) of BP-DES demonstrated similar results. The analyses of ST and very late ST favoured BP-DESs but did not reach statistically significant level.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in clinical outcomes between BP-DESs and DP-DESs over mid- and long-term follow-up.

Three-year outcome of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a comprehensive updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents (EE-BRS) were developed as alternative to everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) for coronary artery disease (CAD) treatments. Areas covered: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, TCTMD, Cardiosource, Clinical Trial Results and the Cochrane Library with combined key words such as bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), everolimus-eluting metallic stents, EES, coronary artery disease, CAD and randomized-Controlled Trials.Finally, 5,474 patients were enrolled for comparison of device-induced thrombosis, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR), device-oriented composite endpoints (DOCE), patient-oriented composite endpoints (POCE), and target vessel failure (TVF) between EE-BRS and EES treatments. The primary literature search retrieved 200 records. Expert Opinion: There was no difference regarding DOCEs, POCEs and ID-TLRs for 1 or 2 years, whereas there were significant differences regarding thrombosis between EE-BRS and EES interventions in the 1-year (pooled HR, 2.15, 95%CI: 1.11, 4.18) and 2-year follow-ups (pooled HR, 2.02, 95%CI: 1.08, 3.78), but not in the 3-year follow-up (pooled HR, 1.57, 95%CI: 0.66, 3.75) anymore. The results of this study showed no inferiority of EE-BRS regarding TVF, DOCE, POCE and ID-TLR 1-year and 2-years after interventions, but enhanced risk of thrombosis in the EE-BRS patients, which disappeared in 3-year follow-ups.

Incidental Finding of Strut Malapposition Is a Predictor of Late and Very Late Thrombosis in Coronary Bioresorbable Scaffolds

Malapposition is a common finding in stent and scaffold thrombosis (ScT). Evidence from studies with prospective follow-up, however, is scarce. We hypothesized that incidental observations of strut malapposition might be predictive of late ScT during subsequent follow-up. One hundred ninety-seven patients were enrolled in a multicentre registry with prospective follow-up. Optical coherence tomography (OCT), performed in an elective setting, was available in all at 353 (0–376) days after bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) implantation. Forty-four patients showed evidence of malapposition that was deemed not worthy of intervention. Malapposition was not associated with any clinical or procedural parameter except for a higher implantation pressure (p = 0.0008). OCT revealed that malapposition was associated with larger vessel size, less eccentricity (all p < 0.01), and a tendency for more uncovered struts (p = 0.06). Late or very late ScT was recorded in seven of these patients 293 (38–579) days after OCT. OCT-diagnosed malapposition was a predictor of late and very late scaffold thrombosis (p < 0.001) that was independent of the timing of diagnosis. We provide evidence that an incidental finding of malapposition—regardless of the timing of diagnosis of the malapposition—during an elective exam is a predictor of late and very late ScT. Our data provide a rationale to consider prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy if strut malapposition is observed.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: learning from the past to improve the future

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) were developed to overcome the long-term limitations of metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). Shortcomings of DES include their permanent metallic cage which prevents normal coronary vasomotion, vascular remodeling, precludes future bypass grafting, and creates a nidus for very late stent thrombosis. With its transient scaffold which provides early mechanical support and subsequently resorbs thereby restoring physiologic properties and architecture of the vasculature, BVS offers a promising development within the field of interventional cardiology. Even though various BVS have been or are currently under development, the ABSORB BVS from Abbott Vascular was the first FDA approved device. In this review, we shed light on shortcomings of the current generation DES and theoretical advantages of BVS. In addition, we will discuss in detail clinical data from observational studies, meta-analyses, registries, and randomized controlled trials as it pertains to the efficacy and safety outcomes with everolimus-eluting BVS as compared to the current generation everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES). We will summarize reasons behind the disappointing results from clinical trials and the failure of first generation BVS leading to its withdrawal from the market. Lastly, we will briefly review ongoing developments with the newer-generation BVS and future pre-clinical and clinical studies that are underway to evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-generation BVS.

Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Strut Thickness on Outcomes in Patients With Drug-Eluting Stents in a Coronary Artery

The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the impact of strut thickness on clinical outcomes in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. We searched Medline/PubMed and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare outcomes of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES) of different strut thicknesses (ultrathin 60 to 80 μm; thin 81 to 100 μm; intermediate 101 to 120 μm; thick ≥120 μm). Studies comparing DES with similar strut thickness, bare metal stents, and fully bioresorbable scaffolds were excluded. Odds ratios with credible intervals (OR [CrIs]) were generated with random-effects models to compare outcomes. Our primary end point was stent thrombosis (ST). We identified 69 RCTs including 80,885 patients (ultrathin group = 10,219; thin group = 36,575; intermediate group = 11,399; thick group = 22,692). Mean age was 64 ± 11 years and 75% were male gender. When compared with thick-strut DES, ultrathin struts had significant less ST and myocardial infarction (OR 0.43 [CrI 0.27 to 0.68]; and OR 0.73 [CrI 0.62 to 0.92], respectively). Sensitivity analysis including only studies with permanent polymer DES gave similar results. Improvement in DES technology with thinner struts is associated with significant reduction in ST and myocardial infarction compared with thicker struts.

Monocyte-mediated drug delivery systems for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases

Major advances have been achieved in understanding the mechanisms and risk factors leading to cardiovascular disorders and consequently developing new therapies. A strong inflammatory response occurs with a substantial recruitment of innate immunity cells in atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and restenosis. Monocytes and macrophages are key players in the healing process that ensues following injury. In the inflamed arterial wall, monocytes, and monocyte-derived macrophages have specific functions in the initiation and resolution of inflammation, principally through phagocytosis, and the release of inflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species. In this review, we will focus on delivery systems, mainly nanoparticles, for modulating circulating monocytes/monocyte-derived macrophages. We review the different strategies of depletion or modulation of circulating monocytes and monocyte subtypes, using polymeric nanoparticles and liposomes for the therapy of myocardial infarction and restenosis. We will further discuss the strategies of exploiting circulating monocytes for biological targeting of nanocarrier-based drug delivery systems for therapeutic and diagnostic applications.

Long-term outcome of first 300 implanted Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in an all-comers Middle East population

Objectives

To evaluate long-term clinical outcomes of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) system (Abbott Vascular) in an all-comers Middle East population.

Methods

This prospective registry study included an initial set of patients with coronary lesions treated using Absorb BVS. Patients were followed for target vessel failure (TVF) including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization.

Results

A total of 217 patients (age, 55 ± 11 years; male, 169) with 300 treated lesions were included (median follow-up, 36 months [range, 26–41 months]; complete follow-up, 201 patients). Diabetes mellitus and acute coronary syndrome were present in 50% and 57% of patients, respectively. TVF rate was 32/201 (15.9%), including cardiac death in 10 (5%), target vessel MI in 13 (6.5%), and target lesion revascularization in 22 patients (10.9%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 11/201 patients (5.5%). TVF was associated with heart failure, worse ejection fraction, multi-vessel BVS, multi BVS in lesion, and total BVS length >50 mm.

Conclusions

Long-term outcome following Absorb BVS implantation in a population with high prevalence of high-risk and complex patients is acceptable, but heart failure, worse ejection fraction, and multi-vessel or long BVS implantation were associated with worse outcomes.

Mid-term outcomes of the Absorb BVS versus second-generation DES: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) were introduced to overcome some of the limitations of drug-eluting stent (DES) for PCI. Data regarding the clinical outcomes of the BVS versus DES beyond 2 years are emerging.

Objective

To study mid-term outcomes.

Methods

We searched online databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL), several websites, meeting presentations and scientific session abstracts until August 8^th, 2017 for studies comparing Absorb BVS with second-generation DES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite/probable device thrombosis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using a random effects model.

Results

Ten studies, seven randomized controlled trials and three propensity-matched observational studies, with a total of 7320 patients (BVS n = 4007; DES n = 3313) and a median follow-up duration of 30.5 months, were included. Risk of TLF was increased for BVS-treated patients (OR 1.34 [95% CI: 1.12–1.60], p = 0.001, I² = 0%). This was also the case for all myocardial infarction (1.58 [95% CI: 1.27–1.96], p<0.001, I² = 0%), TLR (1.48 [95% CI: 1.19–1.85], p<0.001, I² = 0%) and definite/probable device thrombosis (of 2.82 (95% CI: 1.86–3.89], p<0.001 and I² = 40.3%). This did not result in a difference in all-cause mortality (0.78 [95% CI: 0.58–1.04], p = 0.09, I² = 0%). OR for very late (>1 year) device thrombosis was 6.10 [95% CI: 1.40–26.65], p = 0.02).

Conclusion

At mid-term follow-up, BVS was associated with an increased risk of TLF, MI, TLR and definite/probable device thrombosis, but this did not result in an increased risk of all-cause mortality.

2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) offer the potential to improve long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention after their complete bioresorption. Randomised trials have shown non-inferiority between BVS and metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year in composite safety and effectiveness outcomes, although some increases in rates of target vessel-related myocardial infarction and device thrombosis were identified. Outcomes of BVS following the first year after implantation are unknown. We sought to ascertain whether BVS are as safe and effective as drug-eluting stents within 2 years after implantation and between 1 and 2 years.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials in which patients were randomly assigned to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS or metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and followed up for at least 2 years. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, TCTMD, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial Results, CardioSource, and abstracts and presentations from major cardiovascular meetings up to April 1, 2017, to identify relevant studies. The primary efficacy outcome measure was the device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac mortality, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation) and the primary safety outcome measure was definite or probable device thrombosis. Individual patient data from the four ABSORB trials were used for landmark and subgroup analysis and multivariable modelling.

FINDINGS

We identified seven randomised trials in which 5583 patients were randomly assigned to Absorb BVS (n=3261) or metallic EES (n=2322) and followed up for 2 years. BVS had higher 2-year relative risks of the device-oriented composite endpoint than did EES (9·4% [304 of 3217] vs 7·4% [169 of 2299]; relative risk [RR] 1·29 [95% CI 1·08-1·56], p=0·0059). These differences were driven by increased rates of target vessel-related myocardial infarction (5·8% [187 of 3218] vs 3·2% [74 of 2299]; RR 1·68 [95% CI 1·29-2·19], p=0·0003) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (5·3% [169 of 3217] vs 3·9% [90 of 2300]; 1·40 [1·09-1·80], p=0·0090) with BVS, with non-significant differences in cardiac mortality. The cumulative 2-year incidence of device thrombosis was higher with BVS than with EES (2·3% [73 of 3187] vs 0·7% [16 of 2281]; RR 3·35 [95% CI 1·96-5·72], p<0·0001). Landmark analysis between 1 and 2 years also showed higher rates of the device-oriented composite endpoint (3·3% [69 of 2100] vs 1·9% [23 of 1193]; RR 1·64 [95% CI 1·03-2·61], p=0·0376) and device thrombosis (0·5% [11 of 2085] vs none [0 of 1183], p<0·0001) in BVS-treated patients than in EES-treated patients.

INTERPRETATION

BVS was associated with increased rates of composite device-oriented adverse events and device thrombosis cumulatively at 2 years and between 1 and 2 years of follow-up compared with EES.

FUNDING

Abbott Vascular.

Mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic everolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: A weighted meta-analysis of seven randomised controlled trials including 5577 patients

AIMS

Mid- and long-term safety and efficacy of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) have been studied in randomised trials; however, most were not individually powered for clinical endpoints. We performed a weighted meta-analysis comparing mid- and long-term outcomes in patients treated with the BVS compared with the Xience metallic stent.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomised trials comparing the BVS and Xience were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference abstracts. Seven trials were included (BVS n = 3258, Xience n = 2319) with follow-up between 1-3 years. The primary outcome of target lesion failure occurred more frequently in BVS compared with Xience [OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.11-1.62, p = 0.003]. Overall definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with the BVS [OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.88-4.36, p < 0.001] and this extended beyond 1 year of follow-up [OR 4.13; 95% CI 1.99-8.57, p < 0.001]. Clinically indicated or ischaemia driven target lesion revascularisation [OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.83, p = 0.005] and myocardial infarction (all MI) [OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.20-2.23, p = 0.002] were more frequently seen in the BVS compared with Xience. Rates of target vessel failure [OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.46, p = 0.25] and cardiac death [OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.57-1.46, p = 0.71] were not significantly different between BVS and Xience.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows a higher rate of target lesion failure and an almost threefold higher rate of device thrombosis in BVS compared with Xience, which extends beyond the first year. Device thrombosis did not lead to an overall increased (cardiac) mortality.