Mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic everolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: A weighted meta-analysis of seven randomised controlled trials including 5577 patients

AIMS: Mid- and long-term safety and efficacy of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) have been studied in randomised trials; however, most were not individually powered for clinical endpoints. We performed a weighted meta-analysis comparing mid- and long-term outcomes in patients treated with the BVS compared with the Xience metallic stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomised trials comparing the BVS and Xience were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference abstracts. Seven trials were included (BVS n = 3258, Xience n = 2319) with follow-up between 1–3 years. The primary outcome of target lesion failure occurred more frequently in BVS compared with Xience [OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.11–1.62, p = 0.003]. Overall definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with the BVS [OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.88–4.36, p < 0.001] and this extended beyond 1 year of follow-up [OR 4.13; 95% CI 1.99–8.57, p < 0.001]. Clinically indicated or ischaemia driven target lesion revascularisation [OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11–1.83, p = 0.005] and myocardial infarction (all MI) [OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.20–2.23, p = 0.002] were more frequently seen in the BVS compared with Xience. Rates of target vessel failure [OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91–1.46, p = 0.25] and cardiac death [OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.57–1.46, p = 0.71] were not significantly different between BVS and Xience. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows a higher rate of target lesion failure and an almost threefold higher rate of device thrombosis in BVS compared with Xience, which extends beyond the first year. Device thrombosis did not lead to an overall increased (cardiac) mortality. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s12471-017-1008-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.