Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus metallic drug-eluting stent in patients at high risk of restenosis: the COMPARE-ABSORB randomised clinical trial.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes of patients at high risk of restenosis after implantation of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The COMPARE-ABSORB trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective randomised study. Patients at high risk of restenosis were randomly assigned to receive either a BVS or an everolimus-eluting stent (EES). A dedicated implantation technique was recommended for BVS. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation at one year. The enrolment was discontinued prematurely because of a high thrombosis and TVMI rate in the BVS arm. A total of 1,670 patients were recruited (BVS 848 patients and EES 822 patients). TLF occurred in 43 patients (5.1%) of the BVS group and 34 patients (4.2%) of the EES group (absolute difference 0.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.2%-3.0%, p non-inferiority <0.001). Definite or probable device thrombosis (2.0% vs 0.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 3.32, 95% CI: 1.22-8.99, p=0.012) and TVMI (4.0% vs 2.1%, HR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.10-3.51, p=0.02) were significantly higher in the BVS group than in the EES group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients at high risk of restenosis, non-inferiority of BVS compared with EES in terms of TLF was met at one year. BVS carried a higher risk of device thrombosis and TVMI than EES.