Clinical outcomes at 2 years of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the Xience drug-eluting metallic stent in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome versus stable coronary disease-AIDA trial substudy.
Ruben Y G TijssenRene J van der SchaafRobin P KraakMaarten A VinkSjoerd H HofmaE Karin ArkenboutAuke P J D WeeversLaura S M KerkmeijerYoshinobu OnumaPatrick W J C SerruysMarcel A M BeijkKarel T KochJan BaanM Marije VisJan J PiekJan G P TijssenJose P S HenriquesRobbert J de WinterJoanna J WykrzykowskaPublished in: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions (2019)
In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.
Keyphrases
- acute coronary syndrome
- phase iii
- percutaneous coronary intervention
- phase ii
- clinical trial
- end stage renal disease
- antiplatelet therapy
- coronary artery disease
- study protocol
- acute myocardial infarction
- ejection fraction
- coronary artery
- open label
- chronic kidney disease
- double blind
- pulmonary embolism
- heart failure
- peritoneal dialysis
- prognostic factors
- placebo controlled
- st segment elevation myocardial infarction
- st elevation myocardial infarction
- weight loss