A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan
Authors:
Open Access
- 1 September 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Heart Journal
- Vol. 36 (47) , 3332-3342
Abstract
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. 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). In the ABSORB Japan randomized trial, 12-month clinical and 13-month angiographic outcomes of BVSs were comparable to CoCr-EESs. ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844284.Keywords
Funding Information
- Abbott Vascular
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular ScaffoldsJACC, 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 trialThe Lancet, 2015
- Dynamics of vessel wall changes following the implantation of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a multi-imaging modality study at 6, 12, 24 and 36 monthsEuroIntervention, 2014
- Long-term invasive follow-up of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: five-year results of multiple invasive imaging modalitiesEuropean Heart Journal, 2013
- Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysisThe Lancet, 2012
- Very Late Stent Thrombosis and Late Target Lesion Revascularization After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent ImplantationCirculation, 2012
- A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trialThe Lancet, 2008
- Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent TrialsCirculation, 2007
- Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non‐zero risk difference or non‐unity relative riskStatistics in Medicine, 1990
- Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 TestsBiometrics, 1954