Three-year outcome of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a comprehensive updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

References

• Lagerqvist B, James SK, Stenestrand U, et al. Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 08;356(10):1009–1019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Gao R, Xu B, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease: current status and future prospective. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(6):1141–1148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny D, Hijazi Z. Bioresorbable stents for pediatric practice: where are we now? Interventional Cardiology. 2015;7(3):245-255.
   Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, et al. 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387(10025):1277–1289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipinski MJ, Escarcega RO, Baker NC, et al. Scaffold thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention with ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Jan 11;9(1):12–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nairooz R, Saad M, Sardar P, et al. Two-year outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus drug-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Heart. 2017 Jul;103(14):1096–1103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, et al. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007 Jun;07(8):16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, et al. A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Jan 03;385(9962):43–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Sotomi Y, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier B, Cequier A, Dudek D, et al. Four-year follow-up of the randomised comparison between an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II Trial). EuroIntervention. 2018 Jan 20;13(13):1561–1564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier B, Onuma Y, van Boven AJ, et al. Randomised comparison of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold with a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions: the 2-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB II trial. EuroIntervention. 2016 Oct 20;12(9):1102–1107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier B, Serruys PW. The 4-year clinical outcomes of the ABSORB II trial: first randomized comparison between the absorb everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the XIENCE everolimus eluting stent. TCT. 2017. Available from: https://www.tctmd.com/slide/absorb-ii-4-years-clinical-outcomes-beyond-cusp-complete-bioresorption
   Google Scholar
• Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 12;373(20):1905–1915.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kereiakes DJ, Ellis SG, Metzger C, et al. 3-year clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffolds: the ABSORB III trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 12;70(23):2852–2862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao R, Yang Y, Han Y, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB china trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 01;66(21):2298–2309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu B, Yang Y, Han Y, et al. Comparison of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and metallic stents: three-year clinical outcomes from the ABSORB China randomised trial. EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2018;14(5):e554-e561.
   Google Scholar
• Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 15;376(24):2319–2328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura T, Kozuma K, Tanabe K, et al. A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan. Eur Heart J. 2015 Dec 14;36(47):3332–3342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Sotomi Y, Shiomi H, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozuma K, Tanabe K, Kimura T. 3-year Clinical and Angiographic Results of a Randomized trial Evaluating the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold vs. Metallic Drug-eluting Stent in de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions. EuroPCR congress 2017; Paris. Available from: https://www.tctmd.com/slide/absorb-japan-results-3-year-clinical-and-angiographic-results.
   Google Scholar
• Arroyo D, Gendre G, Schukraft S, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: two-year clinical outcomes of the EVERBIO II trial. Int J Cardiol. 2017 Sep;15(243):121–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puricel S, Arroyo D, Corpataux N, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Mar 03;65(8):791–801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters B, Ewert P, Berger F. The role of stents in the treatment of congenital heart disease: current status and future perspectives. Ann Pediatr Cardiol. 2009 Jan;2(1):3–23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polimeni A, Anadol R, Munzel T, et al. Long-term outcome of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of RCTs. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Jun 07;17(1):147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toyota T, Morimoto T, Shiomi H, et al. Very late scaffold thrombosis of bioresorbable vascular scaffold: systematic review and a meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jan 09;10(1):27–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otsuka F, Pacheco E, Perkins LE, et al. Long-term safety of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the cobalt-chromium XIENCE V stent in a porcine coronary artery model. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jun;7(3):330–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souteyrand G, Amabile N, Mangin L, et al. Mechanisms of stent thrombosis analysed by optical coherence tomography: insights from the National PESTO French Registry. Eur Heart J. 2016 Apr 14;37(15):1208–1216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar