JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2025
Early and Late Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold: Final Report From the ABSORB Clinical Trial Program.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Power David A, Camaj Anton, Kereiakes Dean J, Ellis Stephen G, Gao Runlin, Kimura Takeshi, Ali Ziad A, Stockelman Kelly A, Dressler Ovidiu, Onuma Yoshinobu, Serruys Patrick W, Stone Gregg W, ABSORB Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The risk-benefit ratio of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) may vary before and after 3 years, the time point of complete bioresorption of the poly-L-lactic acid scaffold.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the time-varying outcomes of the Absorb BVS compared with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) from a large individual-patient-data pooled analysis of randomized trials.
METHODS: The individual patient data from 5 trials that randomized 5,988 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to the Absorb BVS vs EES with 5-year follow-up were pooled. The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and device thrombosis (DT).
RESULTS: Between 0 and 5 years, TLF occurred in 15.9% BVS patients vs 13.1% EES patients (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.08-1.43; P = 0.002), and DT occurred in 2.2% vs 1.0%, respectively (HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.49-3.79; P = 0.0002). Between 0 and 3 years, TLF occurred in 12.4% BVS patients vs 9.3% EES patients (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.15-1.59; P = 0.0002), and DT occurred in 2.0% vs 0.6%, respectively (HR: 3.58; 95% CI: 2.01-6.36; P < 0.0001). Between 3 and 5 years, TLF occurred in 4.5% BVS patients vs 4.7% EES patients (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.76-1.27; P = 0.91), and DT occurred in 0.2% vs 0.4%, respectively (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.18-1.38; P = 0.17). By spline analysis, the TLF hazard by 5 years was lower with BVS than EES.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EES treatment, BVS increased TLF and DT rates through 5-year follow-up. However, the period of excess risk for the first-generation Absorb BVS ended at 3 years, when poly-L-lactic acid bioresorption is complete. Thereafter event rates were comparable or lower with BVS. (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial, NCT01425281; A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb™ BVS] System in Chinese Population - ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB CHINA], NCT01923740; AVJ-301 Clinical Trial: A Clinical Evaluation of AVJ-301 [Absorb™ BVS] in Japanese Population [ABSORB JAPAN], NCT01844284; ABSORB III Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB III], NCT01751906; Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial, NCT02173379).
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the time-varying outcomes of the Absorb BVS compared with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) from a large individual-patient-data pooled analysis of randomized trials.
METHODS: The individual patient data from 5 trials that randomized 5,988 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to the Absorb BVS vs EES with 5-year follow-up were pooled. The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and device thrombosis (DT).
RESULTS: Between 0 and 5 years, TLF occurred in 15.9% BVS patients vs 13.1% EES patients (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.08-1.43; P = 0.002), and DT occurred in 2.2% vs 1.0%, respectively (HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.49-3.79; P = 0.0002). Between 0 and 3 years, TLF occurred in 12.4% BVS patients vs 9.3% EES patients (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.15-1.59; P = 0.0002), and DT occurred in 2.0% vs 0.6%, respectively (HR: 3.58; 95% CI: 2.01-6.36; P < 0.0001). Between 3 and 5 years, TLF occurred in 4.5% BVS patients vs 4.7% EES patients (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.76-1.27; P = 0.91), and DT occurred in 0.2% vs 0.4%, respectively (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.18-1.38; P = 0.17). By spline analysis, the TLF hazard by 5 years was lower with BVS than EES.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EES treatment, BVS increased TLF and DT rates through 5-year follow-up. However, the period of excess risk for the first-generation Absorb BVS ended at 3 years, when poly-L-lactic acid bioresorption is complete. Thereafter event rates were comparable or lower with BVS. (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial, NCT01425281; A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb™ BVS] System in Chinese Population - ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB CHINA], NCT01923740; AVJ-301 Clinical Trial: A Clinical Evaluation of AVJ-301 [Absorb™ BVS] in Japanese Population [ABSORB JAPAN], NCT01844284; ABSORB III Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB III], NCT01751906; Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial, NCT02173379).
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAbsorbable ImplantsCardiovascular AgentsChromium AlloysCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary ThrombosisDrug-Eluting StentsEverolimusMyocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPolyestersProsthesis DesignRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome