CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Scientific Library

Abstract

Recommended Article

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents Comparison of hospital variation in acute myocardial infarction care and outcome between Sweden and United Kingdom: population based cohort study using nationwide clinical registries Patterns of use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers among patients with acute myocardial infarction in China from 2001 to 2011: China PEACE-Retrospective AMI Study Association of Plaque Location and Vessel Geometry Determined by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography With Future Acute Coronary Syndrome–Causing Culprit Lesions Frequency of nonsystem delays in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and implications for door-to-balloon time reporting (from the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline program) Pharmacotherapy in the Management of Anxiety and Pain During Acute Coronary Syndromes and the Risk of Developing Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Intravenous Statin Administration During Myocardial Infarction Compared With Oral Post-Infarct Administration Quality of Care in Chinese Hospitals: Processes and Outcomes After ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
|<<... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ...>>|

Review ArticleVolume 69, Issue 25, June 2017, Pages 3055-3066

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents

S Sorrentino , G Giustino, GD Dangas et al Keywords: bioresorbable vascular scaffold; everolimus-eluting

ABSTRACT


Background - Recent evidence suggests that bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are associated with an excess of thrombotic complications compared with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES).


Objectives - This study sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved BVS versus metallic EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at longest available follow-up.


Methods - The authors searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and web sources for randomized trials comparing BVS and EES. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion failure and definite or probable stent thrombosis, respectively.


Results - Seven trials were included: in sum, 5,583 patients were randomized to receive either the study BVS (n = 3,261) or the EES (n = 2,322). Median time of follow-up was 2 years (range 2 to 3 years). Compared with metallic EES, risk of target lesion failure (9.6% vs. 7.2%; absolute risk difference: +2.4%; risk ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.59; number needed to harm: 41; p = 0.003; I2 = 0%) and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 0.7%; absolute risk difference: +1.7%; risk ratio: 3.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.87 to 5.30; number needed to harm: 60; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) were both significantly higher with BVS. There were no significant differences in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality between groups. The increased risk for ST associated with BVS was concordant across the early (<30 days), late (30 days to 1 year), and very late (>1 year) periods (pinteraction = 0.49).


Conclusions - Compared with metallic EES, the BVS appears to be associated with both lower efficacy and higher thrombotic risk over time. (Bioresorbable vascular scaffold compare to everolimus stents in long term follow up; CRD42017059993).


>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top