Trial reportEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2022
Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: final five-year results of the AIDA randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01858077 (Amsterdam Investigator-initiateD Absorb Strategy All-comers Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
Amsterdam Investigator-initiateD Absorb Strategy All-comers Trial (AIDA Trial): A Clinical Evaluation Comparing the Efficacy and Performance of ABSORB™ Everolimus Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Strategy Versus the XIENCE Family (XIENCE PRIME™ or XIENCE Xpedition™) Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent Strategy in the Treatment of Coronary Lesions in Consecutive All-comers.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Five-Year Outcomes of Bioresorbable Stent Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus conventional drug-eluting stents across time: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Open heart · 2022Pooled it
- Firesorb bioresorbable scaffold for de novo coronary artery disease: 1-year clinical outcomes.BMC medicine · 2025Trial
- Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Ready for a Rematch?Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Early "Scars" and Long-Term Promise of Bioresorbable Scaffolds: A Decade of Evidence From SCAAR.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Mechanobiology in Action: Biomaterials, Devices, and the Cellular Machinery of Force Sensing.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Impact of lesion preparation and stent optimisation on lesion-oriented events in PCI with drug-eluting stents: 5-year results from the AIDA trial.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- Stent thrombosis: a contemporary guide to definitions, risk factors, and management.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- The Safety and Efficacy Profile of Magnesium-Based Bioresorbable Coronary Stents as Compared to Poly-L-Lactic Acid-Based Bioresorbable and Contemporary Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents-A Systematic Review.Cardiology research and practice · 2025Review
- Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Below-the-Knee Arterial Disease: A Literature Review of New Developments.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Thrombosis and myocardial infarction: the role of bioresorbable scaffolds.The journal of cardiovascular aging · 2023Article
- Bioabsorbable coronary stents - should they be buried?EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbsorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce.
aimsThis report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group.
methodsAIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT.
resultsUp to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p<0.001). DT between 3 and 4 years occurred six times in the Absorb arm versus three times in the XIENCE arm. Between 4 and 5 years, the incidence was three versus two, respectively. Of those three DT in the scaffold group, two occurred in XIENCE EES-treated lesions. The odds ratio of scaffold thrombosis in patients on DAPT compared to off DAPT throughout five-year follow-up was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.15-0.86).
conclusionsThe excess risk of the Absorb BVS on late adverse events, in particular device thrombosis, in routine PCI continues up to 4 years and seems to plateau afterwards. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01858077.
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.