Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34173699›Full record

Trial reportCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2022

Five-year angiographic, OCT and clinical outcomes of a randomized comparison of everolimus and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.

Sara Schukraft, Diego Arroyo, Mario Togni, Jean-Jacques Goy, Peter Wenaweser, Mathieu Stadelmann, Gerard Baeriswyl, Olivier Muller, Jean-Christophe Stauffer, Serban Puricel and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Five-year angiographic, OCT and clinical outcomes of a randomized comparison of everolimus and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sara SchukraftCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1882-9015
Diego ArroyoCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Mario TogniCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Jean-Jacques GoyCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3721-0661
Peter WenaweserCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Mathieu StadelmannCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Gerard BaeriswylCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Olivier MullerCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Jean-Christophe StaufferCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Serban PuricelCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Stéphane CookCardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1221-2978

Funding

Fonds Scientifique Cardiovasculaire
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo compare 5-year angiographic, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and clinical outcomes between patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

methodsThe EverBio-2 trial (Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold) was a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial in which 240 patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to BVS, everolimus-eluting (EES) or biolimus-eluting (BES) DES. Clinical follow-up was scheduled up to 5 years. All patients, alive and who did not have repeat revascularization of the target lesion during follow-up were asked to return for angiographic follow-up at 5 years.

resultsFive-year angiographic follow-up was completed in 122 patients (51%) and OCT analysis was performed in 86 (36%) patients. In-stent late lumen loss was similar in both groups with 0.50 ± 0.38 mm in BVS versus 0.58 ± 0.36 mm in EES/BES, p = 0.20. Clinical follow-up was complete in 232 patients (97%) at 5 years. The rate of the device-oriented endpoint was 22% in the BVS and 18% in the EES/BES group (p = 0.49). The patient-oriented composite endpoint occurred in 40% of BVS- and 43% of EES/BES-treated patients (p = 0.72) at 5 years. No acute coronary syndrome due to stent thrombosis was detected after 2 years. Complete BVS strut resorption was observed at 5 years in the OCT subgroup.

conclusionFive-year clinical outcomes were similar between BVS and DES patients as well as angiographic outcomes in a selected subgroup. However, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn because the EverBio-2 trial was not powered for clinical and angiographic endpoints at 5 years of follow-up.

Indexed as

Drug-Eluting StentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionAbsorbable ImplantsEverolimusHumansProsthesis DesignSirolimusStentsTime FactorsTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeEverolimusSirolimusBVSdrug eluting stentpercutaneous coronary interventionstent thrombosis

Identifiers

PMID34173699
PMCPMC9544452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.