4.6 Article

Efficacy and Safety of the Absorb Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold for Treatment of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Results of the Absorb Diabetic Substudy

Journal

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 42-49

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.10.019

Keywords

bioresorbable vascular; scaffolds; coronary artery disease; diabetes

Funding

  1. Abbott Vascular
  2. Boston Scientific

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois) in patients with diabetes mellitus. BACKGROUND Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with either Absorb BVS or metallic Xience everolimus-eluting stent. However, these trials lack power required to provide reliable treatment effect estimates in this high-risk population. METHODS In a pre-specified, powered analysis, patients with diabetes who received >= 1 Absorb were pooled from the ABSORB II, III, and JAPAN randomized trials and from the single arm ABSORB EXTEND registry. The study composite primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year following Absorb BVS compared with a performance goal of 12.7%. RESULTS Among 754 diabetic patients included in analysis (27.3% insulin treated), the 1-year TLF rate was 8.3% (upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit: 10.1%; p = 0.0001 vs. performance goal). Scaffold thrombosis (definite or probable) was observed in 2.3% of patients. Multivariable regression identified older age, insulin treatment, and smaller pre-procedure reference vessel diameter as significant independent predictors of 1-year TLF. CONCLUSIONS The Absorb diabetic substudy suggests efficacy and safety of the Absorb BVS for treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus. (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available