November 20, 2015
1 min read

Comparable outcomes with BVS, EES in ABSORB II interim 'need to be confirmed'

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact

SAN FRANCISCO — An everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold demonstrated similar clinical outcomes compared with a metallic everolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of CAD, according to interim follow-up data from the ABSORB II trial presented at the annual TCT Scientific Symposium.

“At 2 years, we are noticing no significant difference in the clinical outcomes between the two arms,” Bernard R. Chevalier, MD, of the Institut Jacques Cartier in Massy, France, said during a presentation.

Chevalier, with Patrick W. Serruys, MD, emeritus professor of interventional cardiology at Imperial College, London, and Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands, and colleagues randomly assigned 501 patients in a 2:1 ratio to a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS; Absorb, Abbott Vascular; n = 335) or to an everolimus-eluting stent (EES; Xience, Abbott Vascular; n = 166).

The primary endpoint of the single blind, active-controlled trial is vasomotion at 3 years.

The investigators analyzed outcomes in four categories: patient-oriented composite endpoints (all death, all MI and revascularization; MACE (cardiac death, all MI and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization); device-oriented composite endpoints/target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel MI and clinically indicated TLR); and target vessel failure (cardiac death, all MI and clinically indicated TLR).

The rates of patient-oriented clinical outcomes were 11.6% with BVS vs. 12.8% with EES (P = .70), and device-oriented clinical outcomes were 7% vs. 3%, respectively (P = .07). MACE measured 7.6% in the BVS group vs. 4.3% in the EES cohort (P = .16), and target vessel failure was 8.5% and 6.7%, respectively (P = .48).

The investigators note the 2-year endpoints represent non-prespecified interim analysis.

“The exploratory observations presented in this report are hypothesis-generating and need to be confirmed in larger randomized trials such as ABSORB III.” – by Allegra Tiver


Chevalier BR, et al. ABSORB II: A prospective randomized trial of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold vs. an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with coronary artery disease – two-year outcomes. Presented at: TCT Scientific Symposium; Oct. 11-15, 2015; San Francisco.

Disclosure: Chevalier reports consulting for Abbott Vascular. Serruys reports serving on the international advisory board for Abbott Vascular.