Abstract:Background: Percutaneous coronary interventions to implant bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) were designed to reduce the late thrombotic events that occur with metallic stents.Purpose: To estimate the incidence of scaffold thrombosis after BVS implantation and compare everolimus-eluting BVSs with everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EESs) in terms of safety and efficacy at mid-and long-term follow-up in adults who had a percutaneous coronary intervention.Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and relevant Web sites from inception until 20 May 2017, without language restriction.Study Selection: 7 randomized trials and 38 observational studies (each with a minimum of 6 months and 100 patient-years of follow-up) in adults with coronary artery disease who had a BVS or an EES and reported scaffold or stent thrombosis (main outcome) or other secondary outcomes (such as death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization).Data Extraction: 2 reviewers independently extracted study data, rated study quality, and assessed strength of evidence.Data Synthesis: The pooled incidence of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis after BVS implantation was 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5% to 2.2%) at a median follow-up of 1 year (41 studies, 21 884 patients) and 0.8% (CI, 0.5% to 1.3%) beyond 1 year (14 studies, 4688 patients). Seven trials involving 5578 patients that directly compared BVSs with EESs showed an increased risk for definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (odds ratio [OR], 3.40 [CI, 2.01 to 5.76]) with BVSs at a median follow-up of 25 months. Increased risks were present at early (prominently subacute), late, and very late stages, and odds beyond 1 year were almost double those seen within 1 year. Bioresorbably vascular scaffolds increased risks for myocardial infarction (OR, 1.63 [CI, 1.26 to 2.10]), target lesion revascularization (OR, 1.31 [CI, 1.03 to 1.67]), and target lesion failure (OR, 1.37 [CI, 1.12 to 1.66]); the odds for these 3 end points also increased over time. The incidences of all-cause, cardiac, and noncardiac death and of target vessel and any revascularization did not differ.Limitation: Quality of observational studies was unclear, and some data were unpublished.Conclusion: Compared with EESs, BVSs increased the risks for scaffold thrombosis and other thrombotic events at mid-and long-term follow-up, and risks increased over time.

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: ABSORB China Trial.

Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds and Metallic Stents: Three-Year Clinical Outcomes from the ABSORB China Randomised Trial

Biolimus-coated Versus Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis (BIO ASCEND ISR): a Randomised, Non-Inferiority Trial.

Mid-to-long term clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in coronary artery diseases: a meta-analysis of 7321 patients

Three‐year Clinical Outcomes of the Novel Sirolimus‐eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Prospective Patient‐level Pooled Analysis of NeoVas Trials

5-Year Outcomes After Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffolds Implanted With Improved Technique

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

A randomised comparison of a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: clinical and angiographic follow-up of the TARGET I trial

Comparison of 2 Different Drug-Coated Balloons in In-Stent Restenosis

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: Two-year clinical outcomes of the EVERBIO II trial

Three-year Clinical Outcomes of a Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold (XINSORB) and a Metallic Stent to Treat Coronary Artery Stenosis.

A Randomized Trial Comparing A Novel Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Witheverolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents In Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Two-Year Clinical Outcomes

Thinner-Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: FUTURE-II Trial

Mid- And Long-Term Outcome Comparisons Of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

Clinical Outcomes Prior to and Following Complete Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Resorption: Five-Year Follow-Up From the ABSORB III Trial.

Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice

Biolimus-Coated Balloon in Small-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease the BIO-RISE CHINA Study

Twelve-month Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes of the XINSORB Bioresorbable Sirolimus-Eluting Scaffold and a Metallic Stent in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Bioresorbable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Fully Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Patients Undergoing Coronary Stenting

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold During ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review