跳到主要导航 跳到搜索 跳到主要内容

A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents

  • NeoVas Randomized Controlled Trial Investigators
  • Shenyang General Hospital of PLA
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
  • Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital
  • Xijing Hospital
  • The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University
  • Nanfang Hospital
  • Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital
  • Fujian Medical University
  • General Hospital of Chinese People's Armed Police Forces
  • Aero Space Center Hospital
  • The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University
  • Henan Provincial People's Hospital
  • Central South University
  • Columbia University
  • Cardiovascular Research Foundation

科研成果: 期刊稿件文章同行评审

64 引用 (Scopus)

摘要

Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the NeoVas bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) compared with metallic drug-eluting stents. Background: BRS have the potential to improve very late outcomes compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, but some BRS have been associated with increased rates of device thrombosis before complete bioresorption. NeoVas is a new poly-L-lactic acid BRS that elutes sirolimus from a poly-D, L-lactide coating. Methods: Eligible patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion with a reference vessel diameter 2.5 to 3.75 mm and a lesion length ≤20 mm were randomized 1:1 to NeoVas BRS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). Angiographic follow-up was performed in all patients at 1 year. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), and the major secondary endpoint was the rate of angina. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve were performed in a pre-specified subgroup of patients. Results: The authors randomized 560 patients at 32 centers to treatment with NeoVas (n = 278) versus CoCr-EES (n = 282). One-year in-segment LL with NeoVas and CoCr-EES were 0.14 ± 0.36 mm versus 0.11 ± 0.34 mm (difference 0.03 mm; upper 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval 0.09 mm; p noninferiority < 0.0001; p superiority = 0.36). Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar in the 2 groups, as were the rates of recurrent angina (27.9% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.26). Optical coherence tomography at 1 year demonstrated a higher proportion of covered struts (98.7% vs. 96.2%; p < 0.001), less strut malapposition (0% vs. 0.6%; p <0.001), and a smaller minimal lumen area (4.71 ± 1.64 vs. 6.00 ± 2.15 mm 2 ; p < 0.001) with NeoVas compared with CoCr-EES respectively, with nonsignificant differences in fractional flow reserve (0.89 ± 0.08 vs. 0.91 ± 0.06; p = 0.07). Conclusions: The NeoVas BRS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of 1-year angiographic in-segment LL, and resulted in comparable 1-year clinical outcomes, including recurrent angina.

源语言英语
页(从-至)260-272
页数13
期刊JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
11
3
DOI
出版状态已出版 - 12 2月 2018
已对外发布

学术指纹

探究 'A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents' 的科研主题。它们共同构成独一无二的学术指纹。

引用此