ABSORB III: after 3 Years, the Bioresorbable Scaffold is Still a Disappointment

Courtesy of the SBHCI.

The 3-year outcomes of the ABSORB III trial, which randomized 2008 patients 2:1 to an everolimus eluting bioresorbable scaffold (1322 patients) vs. a metallic stent with permanent everolimus eluting polymer (686 patients), was published with low profile and great disappointment.

ABSORB III: a 3 años continua la desilusión de la plataforma bioabsorbible

Primary end-point, a composite of target vessel failure, occurred in 13.4% of patients receiving the bioresorbable scaffold vs. 10.4% of patients receiving the Xience stent (p=0.06) at three-year follow up.

Read also: Absorb IV: Bioresorbable Scaffolds with an Optimized Implantation Technique”.

There was a significant increase in myocardial infarction rate associated to the target vessel lesion (8.6% vs. 5.9%; p=0.03), and an increase in definite/ thrombosis (2.3% vs. 0.7%; p=0.01) in the Absorb group.



At three-year follow up, the events rate was higher with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold due to an increase in infarction rate associated to target vessel failure and definite/probable thrombosis.


Courtesy of the SBHCI.


Original title 3-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Trial of a Bioresorbable Scaffold vs a Metallic DES in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.

Presenter: Stephen G. Ellis.


Descargar (PDF, Unknown)

Would you like to receive a weekly summary of the most recent scientific articles?

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.