Advertisement

 

 

Randomised comparison of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold with a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions: the 2-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB II trial.

Randomised comparison of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold with a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions: the 2-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB II trial.
Author Information (click to view)

Chevalier B, Onuma Y, van Boven AJ, Piek JJ, Sabaté M, Helqvist S, Baumbach A, Smits PC, Kumar R, Wasungu L, Serruys PW,


Chevalier B, Onuma Y, van Boven AJ, Piek JJ, Sabaté M, Helqvist S, Baumbach A, Smits PC, Kumar R, Wasungu L, Serruys PW, (click to view)

Chevalier B, Onuma Y, van Boven AJ, Piek JJ, Sabaté M, Helqvist S, Baumbach A, Smits PC, Kumar R, Wasungu L, Serruys PW,

Advertisement
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 12(9) 1102-1107 pii EIJY16M08_01
Abstract
AIMS
The one-year randomised data of the ABSORB II trial showed that the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and the everolimus-eluting metallic stent were comparable for the composite secondary clinical outcomes of patient-oriented composite endpoint (PoCE) and device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE)/target lesion failure (TLF), MACE and TVF. This report describes the two-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB II trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS
Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (XIENCE; Abbott Vascular). The trial enrolled 501 patients. Clinical follow-up at two years was available in 320 patients in the Absorb BVS arm and 160 patients in the XIENCE arm. At two years, the PoCE for the Absorb and XIENCE arms was 11.6% and 12.8% (p=0.70) and the DoCE/TLF was 7.0% and 3.0% (p=0.07), respectively. The hierarchical ID-MACE rate was 7.6% vs. 4.3% (p=0.16) and the rate of TVF was 8.5% vs. 6.7% (p=0.48). The definite/probable thrombosis rate was 1.5% in the Absorb arm vs. 0% in the XIENCE arm (p=0.17). Thirty-six percent and 34% of patients remained on DAPT at two years, respectively. Ninety-two percent of patients in both arms remained on aspirin.

CONCLUSIONS
Two-year clinical results demonstrate sustained low rates of PoCE, MACE, DoCE and TVF with the Absorb BVS as compared to the XIENCE stent.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seventeen − five =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]