Comparison of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and metallic stents: three-year clinical outcomes from the ABSORB China randomised trial

This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:

• Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI
  New England Journal of Medicine, 2017
• Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds for Coronary Revascularization
  Circulation, 2016
• 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis
  The Lancet, 2016
• Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease
  JACC, 2015
• Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease
  New England Journal of Medicine, 2015
• Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction—TROFI II trial
  European Heart Journal, 2015
• A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan
  European Heart Journal, 2015
• Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds
  JACC, 2015
• Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry
  EuroIntervention, 2015
• 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
  The Lancet, 2015