JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2018
A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Han Yaling, Xu Bo, Fu Guosheng, Wang Xiaozeng, Xu Kai, Jin Chongying, Tao Ling, Li Lang, Hou Yuqing, Su Xi, Fang Quan, Chen Lianglong, Liu Huiliang, Wang Bin, Yuan Zuyi, Gao Chuanyu, Zhou Shenghua, Sun Zhongwei, Zhao Yanyan, Guan Changdong, Stone Gregg W, NeoVas Randomized Controlled Trial Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the NeoVas bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) compared with metallic drug-eluting stents.
BACKGROUND: BRS have the potential to improve very late outcomes compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, but some BRS have been associated with increased rates of device thrombosis before complete bioresorption. NeoVas is a new poly-l-lactic acid BRS that elutes sirolimus from a poly-D, l-lactide coating.
METHODS: Eligible patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion with a reference vessel diameter 2.5 to 3.75 mm and a lesion length ≤20 mm were randomized 1:1 to NeoVas BRS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). Angiographic follow-up was performed in all patients at 1 year. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), and the major secondary endpoint was the rate of angina. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve were performed in a pre-specified subgroup of patients.
RESULTS: The authors randomized 560 patients at 32 centers to treatment with NeoVas (n = 278) versus CoCr-EES (n = 282). One-year in-segment LL with NeoVas and CoCr-EES were 0.14 ± 0.36 mm versus 0.11 ± 0.34 mm (difference 0.03 mm; upper 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval 0.09 mm; pnoninferiority < 0.0001; psuperiority = 0.36). Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar in the 2 groups, as were the rates of recurrent angina (27.9% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.26). Optical coherence tomography at 1 year demonstrated a higher proportion of covered struts (98.7% vs. 96.2%; p < 0.001), less strut malapposition (0% vs. 0.6%; p <0.001), and a smaller minimal lumen area (4.71 ± 1.64 vs. 6.00 ± 2.15 mm2; p < 0.001) with NeoVas compared with CoCr-EES respectively, with nonsignificant differences in fractional flow reserve (0.89 ± 0.08 vs. 0.91 ± 0.06; p = 0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: The NeoVas BRS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of 1-year angiographic in-segment LL, and resulted in comparable 1-year clinical outcomes, including recurrent angina. (NeoVas Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT02305485).
BACKGROUND: BRS have the potential to improve very late outcomes compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, but some BRS have been associated with increased rates of device thrombosis before complete bioresorption. NeoVas is a new poly-l-lactic acid BRS that elutes sirolimus from a poly-D, l-lactide coating.
METHODS: Eligible patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion with a reference vessel diameter 2.5 to 3.75 mm and a lesion length ≤20 mm were randomized 1:1 to NeoVas BRS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). Angiographic follow-up was performed in all patients at 1 year. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), and the major secondary endpoint was the rate of angina. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve were performed in a pre-specified subgroup of patients.
RESULTS: The authors randomized 560 patients at 32 centers to treatment with NeoVas (n = 278) versus CoCr-EES (n = 282). One-year in-segment LL with NeoVas and CoCr-EES were 0.14 ± 0.36 mm versus 0.11 ± 0.34 mm (difference 0.03 mm; upper 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval 0.09 mm; pnoninferiority < 0.0001; psuperiority = 0.36). Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar in the 2 groups, as were the rates of recurrent angina (27.9% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.26). Optical coherence tomography at 1 year demonstrated a higher proportion of covered struts (98.7% vs. 96.2%; p < 0.001), less strut malapposition (0% vs. 0.6%; p <0.001), and a smaller minimal lumen area (4.71 ± 1.64 vs. 6.00 ± 2.15 mm2; p < 0.001) with NeoVas compared with CoCr-EES respectively, with nonsignificant differences in fractional flow reserve (0.89 ± 0.08 vs. 0.91 ± 0.06; p = 0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: The NeoVas BRS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of 1-year angiographic in-segment LL, and resulted in comparable 1-year clinical outcomes, including recurrent angina. (NeoVas Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT02305485).
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorbable ImplantsAgedCardiac CatheterizationCardiovascular AgentsChinaChromium AlloysCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisCoronary StenosisCoronary ThrombosisDrug-Eluting StentsEverolimusFemaleFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialHumansMaleMiddle AgedPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPolyestersProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignRisk FactorsSingle-Blind MethodSirolimusTime FactorsTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment Outcome