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

Abstract

BackgroundData from randomized controlled trials have shown that the ABSORB BVS is non-inferior to Cobalt Chromium everolimus-eluting stents at 2years. Methods & resultsThe EVERBIO II trial (Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold) is a single-center, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolling 240 patients with an allocation ration of 1:1:1 conducted at University and Hospital Fribourg, Switzerland. The studied devices were an everolimus-eluting persistent polymer stent (EES), a biolimus-eluting stent with bioabsorbable polymer (BES) and a fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). Clinical end points collected at 9months, 12months, and 2years, were academic research consortium defined composites, device thrombosis and target-vessel revascularization.Clinical follow-up at 2years was available in 96% (N=77) of patients in the EES group, in 100% (N=80) in the BES and 99% (N=77) in the BVS group. The device-oriented composite end point of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization occurred in 13 (16%) patients treated with EES, in 7 (9%) patients treated with BES and in 16 (21%) patients treated with BVS. There was no significant difference when the metallic stents were compared to the BVS (p=0.12). There was one late scaffold thrombosis throughout the trial in the BVS group, and no definite stent thrombosis in either EES or BES treated patients. ConclusionsThe current analysis shows no significant differences with regard to clinical outcomes at 2years between BVS and the best-in-class metallic DES. Event rates were numerically higher in BVS-treated patients. However, when BVS were compared to BES alone, the occurrence of device related adverse events was significantly increased.