Three to four years outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus second-generation drug-eluting stent: A meta-analysis.
Absorbable Implants
Aged
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Coronary Thrombosis
/ etiology
Drug-Eluting Stents
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction
/ etiology
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Polyesters
/ chemistry
Prosthesis Design
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
absorb
bioresorbable vascular scaffolds
clinical outcomes
drug-eluting stents
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
05
12
2018
revised:
07
03
2019
accepted:
04
04
2019
pubmed:
20
4
2019
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
20
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the outcomes of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) after 3 years, the approximate time of complete polymer bioresorption. BVS were found to be inferior to second-generation DES in early and mid-term outcomes with a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and device thrombosis (DT). Improper implantation techniques and incomplete bioresorption of the poly-l-lactide (PLLA) polymer were sighted as possible reasons. We conducted an electronic database search for all randomized control trials that compared absorb BVS to second-generation DES and reported outcomes of interest after 3 years of absorb BVS implantation. Assuming interstudy heterogeneity, a random-effects analysis was conducted with odds ratio as the effect size of choice to compare the event rates between the two groups. A total of four studies (n = 3,245, BVS = 2075, DES = 1,170) were included in the final analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that there was no difference between absorb BVS and second-generation DES with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.73-2.07, p = 0.44), TV-MI (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.42-2.53, p = 0.95), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 0.77-3.33, p = 0.20) and definite/probable DT (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.10-5.07, p = 0.74). Also, there was no difference in cardiac mortality (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.22-1.94, p = 0.45). Between 3 and 4 years of follow-up, patients receiving absorb BVS did not have significantly different outcomes, in terms of TLF, TV-MI, TLR, DT, and cardiac mortality, compared to DES.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the outcomes of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) after 3 years, the approximate time of complete polymer bioresorption.
BACKGROUND
BVS were found to be inferior to second-generation DES in early and mid-term outcomes with a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and device thrombosis (DT). Improper implantation techniques and incomplete bioresorption of the poly-l-lactide (PLLA) polymer were sighted as possible reasons.
METHODS
We conducted an electronic database search for all randomized control trials that compared absorb BVS to second-generation DES and reported outcomes of interest after 3 years of absorb BVS implantation. Assuming interstudy heterogeneity, a random-effects analysis was conducted with odds ratio as the effect size of choice to compare the event rates between the two groups.
RESULTS
A total of four studies (n = 3,245, BVS = 2075, DES = 1,170) were included in the final analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that there was no difference between absorb BVS and second-generation DES with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.73-2.07, p = 0.44), TV-MI (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.42-2.53, p = 0.95), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 0.77-3.33, p = 0.20) and definite/probable DT (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.10-5.07, p = 0.74). Also, there was no difference in cardiac mortality (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.22-1.94, p = 0.45).
CONCLUSIONS
Between 3 and 4 years of follow-up, patients receiving absorb BVS did not have significantly different outcomes, in terms of TLF, TV-MI, TLR, DT, and cardiac mortality, compared to DES.
Substances chimiques
Polyesters
0
poly(lactide)
459TN2L5F5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
216-223Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Baber U, Mehran R, Sharma SK, Brar S, et al. Impact of the everolimus-eluting stent on stent thrombosis: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(15):1569-1577.
Bønaa KH, Mannsverk J, Wiseth R, Aaberge L, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1242-1252.
Verheye S, Ormiston JA, Stewart J, Webster M, et al. A next-generation bioresorbable coronary scaffold system: from bench to first clinical evaluation: 6-and 12-month clinical and multimodality imaging results. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(1):89-99.
Ellis SG, Riaz H. Bioresorbable stents: the future of interventional cardiology? Cleve Clin J Med. 2016;83(11 Suppl 2):S18-S23.
Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, Kereiakes DJ, et al. 1-year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387(10025):1277-1289.
Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Sotomi Y, Cequier A, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single blind, multicentre clinical trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10059):2479-2491.
Stone GW, Abizaid A, Onuma Y, Seth A, et al. Effect of technique on outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: analysis from the ABSORB trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(23):2863-2874.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-341.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, et al. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
Chevalier B, Serruys PW. The 4-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB II trial: first randomized comparison between the absorb everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the XIENCE everolimus eluting stent. TCTMD. https://www.tctmd.com/slide/absorb-ii-4-year-outcomes-randomized-trial-bioresorbable-scaffold-vs-metallic-des-patients. Accessed October 13, 2018.
Kereiakes DJ. Clinical outcomes following complete bioresorption of the absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold: four-year results from the ABSORB III trial. TCTMD. https://www.tctmd.com/slide/absorb-beyond-3-years-absorb-iii-4-year-data. Accessed October 13, 2018.
Tanabe K, Kozuma K, Kimura T. Absorb beyond 3 years: ABSORB Japan 4-year data. TCT MD. https://www.tctmd.com/slide/absorb-beyond-3-years-absorb-japan-4-year-data. Accessed October 13, 2018.
Gao R. ABSORB China trial: four-year clinical outcomes. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease. TCT MD. https://www.tctmd.com/slide/absorb-beyond-3-years-absorb-china-4-year-data. Accessed October 13, 2018.
Kereiakes DJ, Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Stone GW. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for coronary revascularization. Circulation. 2016;134:168-182.
Bangalore S, Bezerra HG, Rizik DG, et al. The state of the absorb bioresorbable scaffold: consensus from an expert panel. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2349-2359.
Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E, Dudek D, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial. Lancet. 2008;371:899-907.
Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Onuma Y, Regar E, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet. 2009;373:897-910.
Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, Cequier A, et al. A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:43-54.
Ali ZA, Gao R, Kimura T, Onuma Y, et al. Three-year outcomes with the absorb bioresorbable scaffold: individual-patient-data meta-analysis from the ABSORB randomized trials. Circulation. 2018;137:464-479.
Stone GW, Abizaid A, Onuma Y, et al. Effect of technique on outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: analysis from the ABSORB trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2863-2874.
Puricel S, Cuculi F, Weissner M, et al. Bioresorbable coronary scaffold thrombosis: multicenter comprehensive analysis of clinical presentation, mechanisms, and predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:921-931.
Ellis SG, Gori T, Serruys PW, et al. Clinical, angiographic, and procedural correlates of very late absorb scaffold thrombosis: multistudy registry results. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:638-644.
Sotomi Y, Suwannasom P, Serruys PW, Onuma Y. Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging. EuroIntervention. 2017;12:1747-1756.
Kimura T, Kozuma K, Tanabe K, et al. A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs.everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3332-3342.
Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Popma JJ, et al. Evaluation of a fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: design of and rationale for the ABSORB III randomized trial. Am Heart J. 2015;170:641-651.e3.
Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2319-2328.
Banach M, Serban MC, Sahebkar A, García-García HM, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between bioresorbable vascular stents versus conventional drug-eluting and metallic stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(2):e175-e189.
Regazzoli D, Leone PP, Colombo A, Latib A. New generation bioresorbable scaffold technologies: an update on novel devices and clinical results. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(Suppl 9):S979-S985.
http://elixirmedical.com/index.php?page=desolve-nx-trial. Accessed February 27, 2019.
Abizaid A. New 24-month data from the FANTOM-II clinical trial. https://www.pcronline.com/Cases-resources-images/Resources/Course-videos-slides/2018/FANTOM-the-new-vision-of-BRS-performance?auth=true. Accessed February 27, 2019.
Haude M, Ince H, Kische S, et al. Sustained safety and clinical performance of a drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold up to 24 months: pooled outcomes of BIOSOLVE-II and BIOSOLVE-III. EuroIntervention. 2017;13(4):432-439.
Collet C, Asano T, Miyazaki TE, et al. Late thrombotic events after bioresorbable scaffold implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(33):2559-2566.
Stone GW, Ellis SG, Gori T, Metzger DC, Stein B, et al. Blinded outcomes and angina assessment of coronary bioresorbable scaffolds: 30-day and 1-year results from the ABSORB IV randomized trial. Lancet. 2018;32283-32289.
Testa L, De Carlo M, Petrolini A, et al. One-year clinical results of the Italian diffuse/multivessel disease ABSORB prospective registry (IT-DISAPPEARS). EuroIntervention. 2017;13(4):424-431.