Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus metallic drug-eluting stent in patients at high risk of restenosis: final 7-year results of the COMPARE-ABSORB trial
- investigator-initiated, prospective randomised study
- 3-year landmark analysis
Authors' conclusion
After complete resorption, no benefit was observed with BVS compared with EES at 7-year follow-up, despite the use of a dedicated implantation protocol for BVS. In fact, after 3 years, more target lesion revascularisations occurred with BVS than with EES.
Study context
- Population
- Patients at high risk of restenosisenrolment stopped at 80% of the intended 2,100 patients · bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) 848 · everolimus-eluting stents (EES) 822
- Participants
- 1,670 patients
- Comparison
- BVS vs EES
- BVSn = 848
- EESn = 822reference
- Primary endpoint
- Target lesion failure (TLF): composite of cardiac death, TVMI, or CI-TLR
- Follow-up
- 7-year subsequent to a 3-year landmark analysis
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
1.14
95% CI 0.76–1.77
P = 0.53
By group
BVS vs EES
HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.76–1.77); P = 0.53
Further findings
| Outcome | BVS | EES | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CI-TLR · 7-year follow-up · significantly higher in the BVS arm | 4.4% | 2.2% | 1.97 (1.08–3.60) | P = 0.023 | |
| 0.20.5125Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and device thrombosis · 7-year follow-up
- Rates did not differ between both groups
Early stop of enrolment
- Enrolment stopped because of high thrombosis and TVMI rates in the BVS arm
- 1,670 patients (80% of the intended 2,100 patients)
Original publication
Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus metallic drug-eluting stent in patients at high risk of restenosis: final 7-year results of the COMPARE-ABSORB trial. EuroIntervention. Published 16 February 2026. doi:10.4244/eij-d-25-00778
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it