# Bioresorbeerbare scaffold versus DES: 2-jaars meta-analyse

*geplaatst 2017-07-01 · Algemeen · Heart (British Cardiac Society) · doi 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310886 · https://hartvaat.nl/2017/07/01/bioresorbeerbare-scaffold-versus-des-2-jaars-meta-analyse/*

Meta-analyse van 2-jaarsuitkomsten die bioresorbeerbare scaffolds vergeleek met drug-eluting stents. Toont inferieure veiligheid van BRS.

## English: Two-year outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus drug-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis of 2-year outcomes confirmed inferior safety of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds compared with drug-eluting stents, with higher rates of definite/probable scaffold thrombosis, contributing to the evidence that led to device withdrawal.

## Abstract (original, from the publication)

BACKGROUND: Data regarding long-term clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scarce. METHODS: We searched online databases until October 2016 for studies comparing BVS versus DES reporting outcomes at 2 years of follow-up. We performed a meta-analysis comparing BVS with DES across the spectrum of coronary artery disease (CAD). Random effects model OR was calculated for outcomes of interest including device-oriented composite events (DOCE; defined as composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR)), all-cause mortality, definite stent thrombosis, TV-MI and TLR. RESULTS: A total of 2360 patients enrolled in five studies met criteria for inclusion in this analysis. At 2 years, BVS was associated with higher rates of DOCE (6.9% vs 4.5%, OR=1.53; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.23; p=0.02), absolute risk increase (ARI) 2.4%, relative risk increase (RRI) 53%, TV-MI (4% vs 1.8%, OR=1.94; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.67; p=0.04), ARI 2.2%, RRI 122% and definite stent thrombosis (2.1% vs 0.6%, OR=3.39; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.88; p=0.005), ARI 1.5%, RRI 250% compared with DES. No differences in all-cause mortality (OR=0.86; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.81; p=0.80) and TLR (OR=1.44; 95% CI 0.81 to 2.54; p=0.21) were observed between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: BVS may be associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes compared with DES. Randomised clinical trials are encouraged to expeditiously report long-term safety and efficacy outcomes and identify predictors of adverse events with BVS compared with DES.

Auteurs: Ramez Nairooz, Marwan Saad, Partha Sardar, Wilbert S Aronow

---
Bron: Heart (British Cardiac Society), https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310886. Bijgewerkt 2026-07-03T13:26:04Z. Citeer vrij, met bronvermelding en een link naar hartvaat.nl (de url van het record). Samenvattingen zijn redactioneel werk van HartVaat; de oorspronkelijke publicaties blijven van hun uitgevers (doi). Geen medisch advies.