1 / 16

Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds:

This study compares the outcomes of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with stable CAD or ACS undergoing PCI. The study shows no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two treatments.

cfred
Download Presentation

Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Everolimus- andBiolimus-Eluting Coronary StentsWith Everolimus-Eluting BioresorbableVascular Scaffolds:2-year Outcomes of the EVERBIO II Trial Serban Puricel, MD

  2. Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest I, Serban Puricel DO NOT have a financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with one or more organizations that could be perceived as a real or apparent conflict of interest in the context of the subject of this presentation.

  3. Single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled superiority trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1:1 enrolling a total of 240 patients Puricel et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Mar 3;65(8):791-801.

  4. End points • Patients with stable CAD or ACS undergoing PCI Clinical follow-up @ 1, 6, 9, 12 months, 2 & 5 y; Angio @ 9 months Primary endpoint In-stent late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months • Secondary endpoints • In-segment LLL • Device-oriented MACE (cardiacdeath, tv myocardialinfarction and target-lesionrevascularization) • Patient-oriented MACE (death, myocardial infarction and any repeatrevascularization) • Stent thrombosis according to ARC

  5. Reminder I – Baseline characteristics characteristics

  6. Reminder II – Procedural characteristics

  7. Outcome at 9 months Non-superiority of the metallic stents for the angiographic or any of the clinical end points A post-hoc non-inferiority analysis showed non-inferiority (p<0.001) of the BVS for the primary angiographic end point

  8. 2-year ClinicalOutcome

  9. Survival free from DOCE logrank p-value= 0.12

  10. Landmark analysis DOCE logrank p-value= 0.35 logrank p-value= 0.16

  11. Survival free from POCE logrank p-value= 0.67

  12. Landmark analysis POCE logrank p-value= 0.73 logrank p-value= 0.47

  13. SubgroupanalysisDOCE In favour of EES/BES BVS p-value pinteraction <0.05 0.66 ACS 0.44 0.80 0.07 Diabetes 0.24 Complex (B2/C) 0.69 0.09 0.78

  14. Conclusions • No significantdifferenceswith regard to clinicaloutcomebetween EES/BES and BVS • (Rates of the device-oriented composite end point werehigher for pateintstreatedwith BVS) • Only one latescaffoldthrombosisoccurredthroughout the trial • (the mechanism of thisthrombosismayberelated to a processthatmanifestsitself as PSLIA on OCT)

  15. Cuculi et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Oct;8(10):e002518.

More Related