A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan
- PMID: 26330419
- DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv435
A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan
Abstract
Aims: Theoretically, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) may provide superior long-term results compared with permanent metallic drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, whether BVSs are as safe and effective as metallic DESs prior to complete bioresorption is unknown.
Methods and results: ABSORB Japan was a single-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, randomized trial designed to support regulatory approval of the Absorb BVS in Japan. Eligible patients with one or two de novo lesions in different epicardial vessels were randomized at 38 Japanese sites in a 2:1 ratio to Absorb BVS vs. cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EESs). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure [TLF: a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction attributable to target vessel, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR)] at 12 months, powered for non-inferiority. The major secondary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 13 months. A total of 400 patients were randomized to BVSs (266 patients and 275 lesions) or CoCr-EESs (134 patients and 137 lesions). TLF through 12 months was 4.2% with BVSs and 3.8% with CoCr-EESs [difference (upper one-sided 95% confidence limit) = 0.39% (3.95%); Pnon-inferiority < 0.0001]. Definite/probable stent/scaffold thrombosis at 12 months occurred in 1.5% of the patients with both devices (P = 1.0), and ID-TLR for restenosis was infrequent (1.1% with BVSs and 1.5% with CoCr-EESs, P = 1.0). With 96.0% angiographic follow-up, in-segment LLL at 13 months was 0.13 ± 0.30 mm with BVSs and 0.12 ± 0.32 mm with CoCr-EESs [difference (upper one-sided 95% confidence limit) = 0.01 (0.07); Pnon-inferiority < 0.0001).
Conclusion: In the ABSORB Japan randomized trial, 12-month clinical and 13-month angiographic outcomes of BVSs were comparable to CoCr-EESs.
Clinical registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844284.
Keywords: Bioresorbable scaffold; Coronary stent; Restenosis; Thrombosis.
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Comment in
-
Deliver the drug and be resorbed: evidence from ABSORB Japan.Eur Heart J. 2015 Dec 14;36(47):3343-5. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv459. Epub 2015 Sep 1. Eur Heart J. 2015. PMID: 26330418 No abstract available.
-
Interventional cardiology: Absorbable scaffolds noninferior to metallic stents at 1 year.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015 Nov;12(11):622. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2015.145. Epub 2015 Sep 15. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015. PMID: 26370486 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: ABSORB China Trial.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 1;66(21):2298-2309. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.054. Epub 2015 Oct 12. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015. PMID: 26471805 Clinical Trial.
-
Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Lancet. 2016 Feb 6;387(10018):537-544. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00979-4. Epub 2015 Nov 17. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 26597771 Review.
-
Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial.Lancet. 2016 Nov 19;388(10059):2479-2491. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32050-5. Epub 2016 Oct 30. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 27806897 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Ann Intern Med. 2016 Jun 7;164(11):752-63. doi: 10.7326/M16-0006. Epub 2016 Apr 5. Ann Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27042809
-
Two-year clinical, angiographic, and serial optical coherence tomographic follow-up after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent: insights from the randomised ABSORB Japan trial.EuroIntervention. 2016 Oct 20;12(9):1090-1101. doi: 10.4244/EIJY16M09_01. EuroIntervention. 2016. PMID: 27597270 Clinical Trial.
Cited by
-
Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents on short- and mid-term target lesion outcomes in patients after PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Sep 8;9:949494. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.949494. eCollection 2022. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022. PMID: 36158817 Free PMC article.
-
Neoatherosclerosis: A Distinctive Pathological Mechanism of Stent Failure.Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Mar 7;25(3):95. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2503095. eCollection 2024 Mar. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024. PMID: 39076931 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Neoatherosclerosis - Long-Term Assessment of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold.Circ Rep. 2019 Nov 16;1(12):543-549. doi: 10.1253/circrep.CR-19-0100. Circ Rep. 2019. PMID: 33693100 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in daily clinical practice: A single-centre experience.Neth Heart J. 2017 Nov;25(11):611-617. doi: 10.1007/s12471-017-1038-4. Neth Heart J. 2017. PMID: 28913627 Free PMC article.
-
Procedural and one-year clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of chronic total occlusions: a single-centre experience.Cardiovasc J Afr. 2016 Nov/Dec 23;27(6):345-349. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2016-033. Epub 2016 Apr 12. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2016. PMID: 27078224 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical