Complete two-year follow-up with formal non-inferiority testing on primary outcomes of the AIDA trial comparing the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with the XIENCE drug-eluting metallic stent in routine PCI

Ruben Y. G. Tijssen, Robin P. Kraak, Sjoerd H. Hofma, Rene J. van der Schaaf, E. Karin Arkenbout, Auke Weevers, Joelle Elias, Ivo M. van Dongen, Karel T. Koch, Jan Baan Jr, M. Marije Vis, Robbert J. de Winter, Jan J. Piek, Jan G. P. Tijssen, Jose P. S. Henriques, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this report of the AIDA trial is to provide full two-year outcomes for the primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) and an update on device thrombosis. Methods and results: AIDA was a single-blind, multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1) clinical trial. At complete two-year follow-up, the primary endpoint of TVF had occurred in 100 patients in the Absorb BVS arm versus 90 patients in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.94-1.49; psuperiority=0.436). Estimated two-year Kaplan-Meier event rates of TVF were 11.0% and 9.9%, respectively (95% CI: -0.9%-3.0%; pnon-inferiority=0.003). Definite or probable device thrombosis at two years occurred in 30 patients in the Absorb BVS arm and in eight patients in the XIENCE EES arm. Kaplan- Meier estimates of device thrombosis were 3.3% in the Absorb BVS arm and 0.9% in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 5.22, 95% CI: 2.00-13.59; p<0.001). Conclusions: AIDA formally met its criterion for non-inferiority of Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in terms of the combined endpoint of TVF. The Absorb BVS, however, was associated with higher rates of scaffold thrombosis and target vessel myocardial infarction at complete two-year follow-up.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e426-e433
JournalEurointervention
Volume14
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Cite this