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

被引:67
|
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
  • [1] A randomized trial comparing a novel sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease
    Han, Y. L.
    Xu, B.
    Fu, G. S.
    Wang, X. Z.
    Xu, K.
    Guan, C. D.
    Stone, G. W.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2017, 38 : 410 - 410
  • [2] Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents
    Shah, Rahman
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 165 (11) : 828 - 829
  • [3] Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents RESPONSE
    Zhang, Xin-Lin
    Xu, Biao
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 165 (11) : 829 - 829
  • [4] A Randomized Comparison of Bioheart Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Everolimus-Eluting Stents The BIOHEART-II Tria
    Liu, Shengwen
    Nie, Shaoping
    Hou, Yuqing
    Huang, Guangyong
    Fu, Guosheng
    Zhou, Hua
    Wei, Meng
    Lu, Feng
    Zhang, Feng
    Wang, Lefeng
    Wang, Yang
    Wu, Yongjian
    Qiao, Shubin
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2025, 18 (01) : 15 - 27
  • [5] Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents
    Zhang, Xin-Lin
    Zhu, Li
    Wei, Zhong-Hai
    Zhu, Qing-Qing
    Qiao, Jian-Zhong
    Dai, Qing
    Huang, Wei
    Li, Xiao-Hong
    Xie, Jun
    Kang, Li-Na
    Wang, Lian
    Xu, Biao
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 164 (11) : 752 - +
  • [6] Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents
    Kandzari, David E.
    Koolen, Jacques J.
    Doros, Gheorghe
    Garcia-Garcia, Hector M.
    Bennett, Johan
    Roguin, Ariel
    Gharib, Elie G.
    Cutlip, Donald E.
    Waksman, Ron
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2022, 15 (18) : 1852 - 1860
  • [7] Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents
    Sorrentino, Sabato
    Giustino, Gennaro
    Mehran, Roxana
    Kini, Anapoorna S.
    Sharma, Samin K.
    Faggioni, Michela
    Farhan, Serdar
    Vogel, Birgit
    Indolfi, Ciro
    Dangas, George D.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2017, 69 (25) : 3055 - 3066
  • [8] Comparison of neointimal coverage between everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents: an optical coherence tomography substudy of the RESET (Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial)
    Kubo, Takashi
    Akasaka, Takashi
    Kozuma, Ken
    Kimura, Kazuo
    Kawamura, Masaki
    Sumiyoshi, Tetsuya
    Ino, Yasushi
    Morino, Yoshihiro
    Tanabe, Kengo
    Kadota, Kazushige
    Kimura, Takeshi
    EUROINTERVENTION, 2015, 11 (05) : 564 - 571
  • [9] Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 1-Year Outcomes from the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial (RESET)
    Kimura, Takeshi
    Morimoto, Takeshi
    Natsuaki, Masahiro
    Shiomi, Hiroki
    Igarashi, Keiichi
    Kadota, Kazushige
    Tanabe, Kengo
    Morino, Yoshihiro
    Akasaka, Takashi
    Takatsu, Yoshiki
    Nishikawa, Hideo
    Yamamoto, Yoshito
    Nakagawa, Yoshihisa
    Hayashi, Yasuhiko
    Iwabuchi, Masashi
    Umeda, Hisashi
    Kawai, Kazuya
    Okada, Hisayuki
    Kimura, Kazuo
    Simonton, Charles A.
    Kozuma, Ken
    CIRCULATION, 2012, 126 (10) : 1225 - +
  • [10] Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents
    Kandzari, David E.
    Koolen, Jacques J.
    Doros, Gheorghe
    Massaro, Joseph J.
    Garcia-Garcia, Hector M.
    Bennett, Johan
    Roguin, Ariel
    Gharib, Elie G.
    Cutlip, Donald E.
    Waksman, Ron
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2018, 72 (25) : 3287 - 3297