A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents

被引:66
|
作者
Han, Yaling [1 ]
Xu, Bo [1 ]
Fu, Guosheng [1 ]
Wang, Xiaozeng [1 ]
Xu, Kai [1 ]
Jin, Chongying [1 ]
Tao, Ling [1 ]
Li, Lang [1 ]
Hou, Yuqing [1 ]
Su, Xi [1 ]
Fang, Quan [1 ]
Chen, Lianglong [1 ]
Liu, Huiliang [1 ]
Wang, Bin [1 ]
Yuan, Zuyi [1 ]
Gao, Chuanyu [1 ]
Zhou, Shenghua [1 ]
Sun, Zhongwei [1 ]
Zhao, Yanyan [1 ]
Guan, Changdong [1 ]
Stone, Gregg W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Gen Hosp Shenyang Mil Reg, Dept Cardiol, 83 Wenhua Rd, Shenyang 110016, Peoples R China
关键词
bioresorbable scaffolds; drugeluting stent(s); randomized controlled trial; CORONARY INTERVENTION; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY; VASCULAR SCAFFOLDS; THROMBOSIS; IMPLANTATION; MECHANISMS; PREDICTION; OUTCOMES; EVENTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcin.2017.09.037
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 angio-graphic 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; p(noninferiority) < 0.0001; p(superiority) = 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 mm(2); 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. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
引用
收藏
页码:261 / 272
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Endothelial Barrier Protein Expression in Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents
    Mori, Hiroyoshi
    Cheng, Qi
    Lutter, Christoph
    Smith, Samantha
    Guo, Liang
    Kutyna, Matthew
    Torii, Sho
    Harari, Emanuel
    Acampado, Eduardo
    Joner, Michael
    Kolodgie, Frank D.
    Virmani, Renu
    Finn, Aloke V.
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2017, 10 (23) : 2375 - +
  • [22] Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Total Coronary Occlusions Results From the Chronic Coronary Occlusion Treated by Everolimus-eluting Stent Randomized Trial
    Moreno, Raul
    Garcia, Eulogio
    Teles, Rui
    Rumoroso, Jose-Ramon
    Carvalho, Henrique Cyrne
    Javier Goicolea, Francisco
    Moreu, Jose
    Mauri, Josefa
    Sabate, Manel
    Mainar, Vicente
    Patricio, Lino
    Valdes, Mariano
    Vazquez, Felipez Fernandez
    Sanchez-Recalde, Angel
    Galeote, Guillermo
    Jimenez-Valero, Santiago
    Almeida, Manuel
    Lopez de Sa, Esteban
    Calvo, Luis
    Plaza, Ignacio
    Lopez-Sendon, Jose-Luis
    Martin, Jose-Luis R.
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2013, 6 (01) : 21 - 28
  • [23] Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial
    Kandzari, David E.
    Mauri, Laura
    Koolen, Jacques J.
    Massaro, Joseph M.
    Doros, Gheorghe
    Garcia-Garcia, Hector M.
    Bennett, Johan
    Roguin, Ariel
    Gharib, Elie G.
    Cutlip, Donald E.
    Waksman, Ron
    LANCET, 2017, 390 (10105): : 1843 - 1852
  • [24] Two-Year Results of an Open-Label Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents
    Velders, Matthijs A.
    Hofma, Sjoerd H.
    Brouwer, Jan
    de Vries, Cees Jan
    Quere, Michel
    van Boven, Adrianus J.
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (06):
  • [25] Comparison of Ultrathin, Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents and Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Calcified or Small Vessel Lesions
    Dan, Kazuhiro
    Garcia-Garcia, Hector M.
    Kolm, Paul
    Windecker, Stephan
    Saito, Shigeru
    Kandzari, David E.
    Waksman, Ron
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2020, 13 (09) : E009189
  • [26] Midterm clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents for percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis of randomised trials
    Cassese, Salvatore
    Byrne, Robert A.
    Juni, Peter
    Wykrzykowska, Joanna J.
    Puricel, Serban
    Ndrepepa, Gjin
    Schunkert, Heribert
    Fusaro, Massimiliano
    Cook, Stephane
    Kimura, Takeshi
    Henriques, Jose P. S.
    Serruys, Patrick W.
    Windecker, Stephan
    Kastrati, Adnan
    EUROINTERVENTION, 2018, 13 (13) : 1565 - 1573
  • [27] Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial
    Pilgrim, Thomas
    Roffi, Marco
    Tueller, David
    Muller, Olivier
    Vuilliomenet, Andre
    Cook, Stephane
    Weilenmann, Daniel
    Kaiser, Christoph
    Jamshidi, Peiman
    Heg, Dik
    Jueni, Peter
    Windecker, Stephan
    AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 2014, 168 (03) : 256 - 261
  • [28] Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes After Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes
    De Rosa, Roberta
    Silverio, Angelo
    Varricchio, Attilio
    De Luca, Giuseppe
    Di Maio, Marco
    Radano, Ilaria
    Belmonte, Marta
    De Angelis, Maria Carmen
    Moscarella, Elisabetta
    Citro, Rodolfo
    Piscione, Federico
    Galasso, Gennaro
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2018, 122 (01): : 61 - 68
  • [29] Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in primary percutaneous coronary intervention of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial
    Eriksen, Erlend
    Neghabat, Omeed
    Saeed, Sahrai
    Herstad, Jon
    Nordrehaug, Jan Erik
    Tuseth, Vegard
    Holm, Niels Ramsing
    Holck, Emil Nielsen
    Sejr-Hansen, Martin
    Maule, Camilla Fox
    Barkholt, Trine Orhoj
    Andreasen, Lene Nyhus
    Christiansen, Evald Hoj
    Bleie, Oyvind
    CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE, 2023, 34 (01) : 1 - 10
  • [30] Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds
    Puricel, Serban
    Arroyo, Diego
    Corpataux, Noe
    Baeriswyl, Gerard
    Lehmann, Sonja
    Kallinikou, Zacharenia
    Muller, Olivier
    Allard, Ludovic
    Stauffer, Jean-Christophe
    Togni, Mario
    Goy, Jean-Jacques
    Cook, Stephane
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2015, 65 (08) : 791 - 801