ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2017
Mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic everolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: A weighted meta-analysis of seven randomised controlled trials including 5577 patients.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus conventional drug-eluting stents across time: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Open heart · 2022Pooled it
- Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents on short- and mid-term target lesion outcomes in patients after PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Current situation and overview of resorbable magnesium scaffolds: a perspective for overcoming the remaining issues of polymeric bioresorbable scaffold.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Vascular response following implantation of the third-generation drug-eluting resorbable coronary magnesium scaffold: an intravascular imaging analysis of the BIOMAG-I first-in-human study.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Safety and efficacy of a novel 3D-printed bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold in a porcine model.AsiaIntervention · 2023Article
- Very-long-term efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017Article
- The first-generation ABSORB BVS: awaiting dissolving outcomes.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017Article
- Adverse events with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine percutaneous coronary interventions: "coup de théâtre" or unfinished play?Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
- The first generation ABSORB BVS scaffold; to be or not to be?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMid- and long-term safety and efficacy of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) have been studied in randomised trials; however, most were not individually powered for clinical endpoints. We performed a weighted meta-analysis comparing mid- and long-term outcomes in patients treated with the BVS compared with the Xience metallic stent. METHODS AND
resultsRandomised trials comparing the BVS and Xience were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference abstracts. Seven trials were included (BVS n = 3258, Xience n = 2319) with follow-up between 1-3 years. The primary outcome of target lesion failure occurred more frequently in BVS compared with Xience [OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.11-1.62, p = 0.003]. Overall definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with the BVS [OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.88-4.36, p < 0.001] and this extended beyond 1 year of follow-up [OR 4.13; 95% CI 1.99-8.57, p < 0.001]. Clinically indicated or ischaemia driven target lesion revascularisation [OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.83, p = 0.005] and myocardial infarction (all MI) [OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.20-2.23, p = 0.002] were more frequently seen in the BVS compared with Xience. Rates of target vessel failure [OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.46, p = 0.25] and cardiac death [OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.57-1.46, p = 0.71] were not significantly different between BVS and Xience.
conclusionThis meta-analysis shows a higher rate of target lesion failure and an almost threefold higher rate of device thrombosis in BVS compared with Xience, which extends beyond the first year. Device thrombosis did not lead to an overall increased (cardiac) mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.