The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (EAPCI)

Bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: Five years clinical outcomes of the randomised ABSORB II trial

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00024

1. Department of Cardiology, National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG), Galway, Ireland
2. Ramsay Générale de Santé, Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud, Massy, France
3. Department of Cardiology, National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG), Galway, Ireland;Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
4. Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
5. Institute of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
6. Städtisches Kliniken Neuss, Lukaskrankenhaus GmbH, Neuss, Germany
7. Department of Cardiology, CHU Rangueil, Toulouse, France
8. Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
9. Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
10. Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA
11. Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA; Department of Interventional Cardiology, Royal Papworth Hospital, UK
12. Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany and Department of Cardiology, St. Franziskus Hospital Münster, Germany
13. Department of Cardiology, Centro Hospital de Lisboa Ocidental, Lisbon, Portugal
14. Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Ferrara, Cone (FE), Italy and Maria Cecilia Hospital, GVM Care & Research, Cotignola (RA), Italy
15. Hospital Alvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Spain
16. Department of Cardiology, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG), Galway, Ireland; NHLI, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Disclaimer:

As a public service to our readership, this article - peer reviewed by the Editors of EuroIntervention and external reviewers - has been published immediately upon acceptance as it was received in the last round of revision. The content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

Please note that supplementary movies are not available online at this stage. Once a paper is published in its edited and formatted form, it will be accompanied online by any supplementary movies.

To read the full content of this article, please log in to download the PDF.

The Absorb bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold was designed to provide a transient vessel scaffold and everolimus elution followed by bioresorption of the polymer, aiming to restore coronary structure and functionality. Although randomized controlled trials comparing the bioresorbable scaffold and Xience everolimus-eluting stent demonstrated non-inferiority of Absorb compared with Xience in target lesion failure at 1-year, the excess of early, late, and very late scaffold thromboses raised safety concerns of the bioresorbable scaffold, leading to a halt of commercialisation of the product. Theoretically, the device-related events should diminish after the completion of the bioresorption process (three years); however clinical data beyond four years has not yet been reported in the context of the randomized controlled ABSORB II trial1. The objective of this current report is therefore to present comparative clinical results of the Absorb scaffold and Xience stents out to five years in this randomised trial. 

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet? Sign up for free!
Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Read next article
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interventional cardiology practice: results of the EAPCI survey