EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026
Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus metallic drug-eluting stent in patients at high risk of restenosis: final 7-year results of the COMPARE-ABSORB trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Smits Pieter C, Włodarczak Adrian, Chevalier Bernard, West Nick E J, Gori Tommaso, Abdel-Wahab Mohamed, Barbato Emanuele, Esposito Giovanni, Tarantini Giuseppe, Kocka Viktor, Achenbach Stephan, Dudek Dariusz, Escaned Javier, Tijssen Jan G P, Rademaker-Havinga Tessa A M, Serruys Patrick, Morice Marie-Claude, Onuma Yoshinobu, Geuns Robert-Jan van, Behalf Of The Compare-Absorb Trial Investigators On
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) beyond 5-year follow-up are unknown.
AIMS: This study aims to investigate clinical outcomes of BVS 7 years after implantation.
METHODS: The COMPARE-ABSORB trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective randomised study. Patients at high risk of restenosis were randomly assigned to receive either a BVS or an EES. A dedicated implantation technique was recommended for BVS. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation (CI-TLR). The primary and co-primary objectives were non-inferiority at 1 year and superiority of BVS at 7 years after a 3-year landmark analysis.
RESULTS: Although enrolment was stopped at 1,670 patients (80% of the intended 2,100 patients; 848 patients receiving BVS and 822 EES) because of high thrombosis and TVMI rates in the BVS arm, non-inferiority for TLF at 1 year was met. At 7-year follow-up subsequent to a 3-year landmark analysis, the TLF rate of BVS was 6.7% versus 5.9% for EES (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.77; p=0.53); therefore, superiority was not met. Cardiac death, TVMI, and device thrombosis rates did not differ between both groups; however, CI-TLR was significantly higher in the BVS arm (4.4% vs 2.2%; HR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.08-3.60; p=0.023).
CONCLUSIONS: After complete resorption, no benefit was observed with BVS compared with EES at 7-year follow-up, despite the use of a dedicated implantation protocol for BVS. In fact, after 3 years, more target lesion revascularisations occurred with BVS than with EES.
AIMS: This study aims to investigate clinical outcomes of BVS 7 years after implantation.
METHODS: The COMPARE-ABSORB trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective randomised study. Patients at high risk of restenosis were randomly assigned to receive either a BVS or an EES. A dedicated implantation technique was recommended for BVS. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation (CI-TLR). The primary and co-primary objectives were non-inferiority at 1 year and superiority of BVS at 7 years after a 3-year landmark analysis.
RESULTS: Although enrolment was stopped at 1,670 patients (80% of the intended 2,100 patients; 848 patients receiving BVS and 822 EES) because of high thrombosis and TVMI rates in the BVS arm, non-inferiority for TLF at 1 year was met. At 7-year follow-up subsequent to a 3-year landmark analysis, the TLF rate of BVS was 6.7% versus 5.9% for EES (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.77; p=0.53); therefore, superiority was not met. Cardiac death, TVMI, and device thrombosis rates did not differ between both groups; however, CI-TLR was significantly higher in the BVS arm (4.4% vs 2.2%; HR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.08-3.60; p=0.023).
CONCLUSIONS: After complete resorption, no benefit was observed with BVS compared with EES at 7-year follow-up, despite the use of a dedicated implantation protocol for BVS. In fact, after 3 years, more target lesion revascularisations occurred with BVS than with EES.