***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: AIMS The aim of the study was to develop a scoring model to evaluate the quality of  bioresorbable vascular scaffold ( BVS ) implantation  and determine the model 's usefulness in predicting adverse cardiac events . METHODS AND RESULTS The implantation technique and clinical outcomes of 1,736 lesions treated with BVS were analysed using the GHOST-EU registry . Predilation , scaffold sizing , and post-dilation ( PSP ) were scored according to the hazard model derived from the weight of these variables . The primary endpoint was a one-year device-oriented composite endpoint ( DoCE ) composed of cardiac death , target vessel myocardial infa rct ion , and clinical ly driven target lesion revascularisation . Definite/probable scaffold thrombosis was also evaluated as defined by the Academic Research Consortium . The PSP model performance was evaluated by internal validation . Predilation , correct scaffold sizing , and post-dilation with a non-compliant balloon were performed in 95.7 % , 50.2 % , and 26.2 % of the cases and scored 0.63 , 1.96 and 1.93 points , respectively , in the PSP-1 model . PSP-1 was an independent predictor of one-year DoCE ( HR 0.75 , 95 % CI : 0.61 - 0.93 ; p=0.007 ) , but with poor calibration and discrimination ( AUC 0.611 , 95 % CI : 0.545 - 0.677 ) . No patient with a maximum PSP-1 score had scaffold thrombosis , compared to those with a non-maximum PSP-1 score ( 0 % vs. 2.3 % ; p=0.095 ) . CONCLUSIONS At one-year follow-up , the PSP-1 score was an independent predictor of DoCE . External validation and prospect i ve studies are needed to determine the clinical usefulness of this score OBJECTIVES We evaluated clinical results up to 36 months after implantation of Absorb BVS using PSP-technique and compared the outcome of patients with and without diabetes mellitus . BACKGROUND Absorb II demonstrated that interventional treatment of coronary artery disease with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds ( BVS ) without proper PSP-technique ( pre-dilation , proper sizing , and post-dilation ) is associated with an increased thrombotic risk , even in simple lesions . METHODS In this prospect i ve study 319 patients with 420 lesions were enrolled and treated with the  Absorb BVS . Pre-dilation was m and atory and post-dilation with a high-pressure balloon was performed in patients with a scaffold length > 12 mm . Patients were clinical ly followed up to 3 years . Primary outcome measure was the device-oriented endpoint ( DoCE ) defined as cardiac death , myocardial infa rct ion not clearly related to a non-target vessel and target lesion revascularization . RESULTS DoCE was 5.0 % , 7.1 % , and 10.0 % after 12 , 24 , and 36 months for the total population . Rate of scaffold thrombosis was 0.5 % , 0.8 % , and 1.4 % after 12 , 24 , and 36 months . Rate of DoCE was higher in the diabetic subgroup with 9.1 % , 12.6 % , and 12.9 % after 12 , 24 , and 36 months compared with 4.0 % ( P = 0.13 ) , 5.6 % ( P = 0.05 ) , and 9.9 % ( P = 0.20 ) in patients without diabetes mellitus . CONCLUSIONS Patients treated with the Absorb BVS using the PSP-technique show good results up to 3 years with a low rate of scaffold thrombosis .  Patients suffering from diabetes mellitus have an increased rate of DoCE compared with non-diabetic patients . CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION clinical trials.gov_NCT02162056 BACKGROUND Data from r and omized controlled trials have shown that the ABSORB BVS is non-inferior to Cobalt Chromium everolimus-eluting stents at 2years . METHODS & RESULTS The EVERBIO II trial ( Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold ) is a single-center , assessor-blind , r and omized controlled trial enrolling 240 patients with an allocation ration of 1:1:1 conducted at University and Hospital Fribourg , Switzerl and . The studied devices were an everolimus-eluting persistent polymer stent ( EES ) , a biolimus-eluting stent with bioabsorbable polymer ( BES ) and a fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold ( BVS ) . Clinical end points collected at 9months , 12months , and 2years , were academic research consortium defined composites , device thrombosis and target-vessel revascularization . Clinical follow-up at 2years was available in 96 % ( N=77 ) of patients in the EES group , in 100 % ( N=80 ) in the BES and 99 % ( N=77 ) in the BVS group . The device-oriented composite end point of cardiac death , target-vessel myocardial infa rct ion and target-lesion revascularization occurred in 13 ( 16 % ) patients treated with EES , in 7 ( 9 % ) patients treated with BES and in 16 ( 21 % ) patients treated with BVS . There was no significant difference when the metallic stents were compared to the BVS ( p=0.12 ) . There was one late scaffold thrombosis throughout the trial in the BVS group , and no definite stent thrombosis in either EES or BES treated patients . CONCLUSIONS The current analysis shows no significant differences with regard to clinical outcomes at 2years between BVS and the best-in-class metallic DES . Event rates were numerically higher in BVS-treated patients . However , when BVS were compared to BES alone , the occurrence of device related adverse events was significantly increased BACKGROUND In patients with coronary artery disease who receive metallic drug-eluting coronary stents , adverse events such as late target-lesion failure may be related in part to the persistent presence of the metallic stent frame in the coronary-vessel wall . Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds have been developed to attempt to improve long-term outcomes . METHODS In this large , multicenter , r and omized trial , 2008 patients with stable or unstable angina were r and omly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular ( Absorb ) scaffold ( 1322 patients ) or an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium ( Xience ) stent ( 686 patients ) . The primary end point , which was tested for both noninferiority ( margin , 4.5 percentage points for the risk difference ) and superiority , was target-lesion failure ( cardiac death , target-vessel myocardial infa rct ion , or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization ) at 1 year . RESULTS Target-lesion failure at 1 year occurred in 7.8 % of patients in the Absorb group and in 6.1 % of patients in the Xience group ( difference , 1.7 percentage points ; 95 % confidence interval , -0.5 to 3.9 ; P=0.007 for noninferiority and P=0.16 for superiority ) . There was no significant difference between the Absorb group and the Xience group in rates of cardiac death ( 0.6 % and 0.1 % , respectively ; P=0.29 ) , target-vessel myocardial infa rct ion ( 6.0 % and 4.6 % , respectively ; P=0.18 ) , or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization ( 3.0 % and 2.5 % , respectively ; P=0.50 ) . Device thrombosis within 1 year occurred in 1.5 % of patients in the Absorb group and in 0.7 % of patients in the Xience group ( P=0.13 ) . CONCLUSIONS In this large-scale , r and omized trial , treatment of noncomplex obstructive coronary artery disease with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold , as compared with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent , was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with respect to target-lesion failure at 1 year . ( Funded by Abbott Vascular ; ABSORB III Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT01751906 . ) A previous Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology ( ESC ) and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions ( EAPCI ) provided a report on recommendations for the non- clinical and clinical evaluation of coronary stents . Following dialogue with the European Commission , the Task Force was asked to prepare an additional report on the class of devices known as bioresorbable scaffolds ( BRS ) . Five BRS have CE-mark approval for use in Europe . Only one device-the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold-has published r and omized clinical trial data and this data show inferior outcomes to conventional drug-eluting stents ( DES ) at 2 - 3 years . For this reason , at present BRS should not be preferred to conventional DES in clinical practice . The Task Force recommends that new BRS devices should undergo systematic non- clinical testing according to st and ardized criteria prior to evaluation in clinical studies . A clinical evaluation plan should include data from a medium sized , r and omized trial against DES powered for a surrogate end point of clinical efficacy . Manufacturers of successful devices receive CE-mark approval for use and must have an approved plan for a large-scale r and omized clinical trial with planned long-term follow-up AIMS The present multicentre prospect i ve study , IT-DISAPPEARS , was design ed with the aim of evaluating early and long-term clinical outcomes of the Absorb BVS in patients with long coronary lesions and /or multivessel coronary artery disease . The aim of this article is to present the one-year clinical results of this study . METHODS AND RESULTS Between November 2014 and January 2016 , we enrolled 1,002 patients undergoing BVS implantation ( long lesion [ ≥ 24 mm ] of a single vessel in 80.4 % , at least two BVS in two or three coronary vessels in 8.6 % and both criteria in 11 % ) . Clinical presentation was an acute coronary syndrome in 59.8 % of patients , including ST-elevation myocardial infa rct ion in 21.8 % . The primary endpoint was the device-oriented composite endpoint ( DOCE ) of cardiac death , target vessel MI , and ischaemia-driven TLR at one year . We implanted 2,040 BVS  according to a pre-specified technique . One-year follow-up was available in 956 patients ( 95.4 % ) . The rate of DOCE was 9.9 % ( 95 patients ) . Cardiac death occurred in five patients ( 0.5 % ) , while target vessel MI and TLR each occurred in 45 ( 4.7 % ) patients . The one-year rates of all-cause death , non-fatal MI , and any revascularisation were 1.2 % , 5.4 % , and 10.9 % , respectively . The rate of definite/probable scaffold thrombosis was 0.9 % . CONCLUSIONS This is the first study specifically investigating the Absorb technology in patients with a high atherosclerotic burden and multivessel disease . The m and atory adherence to a pre-specified implantation technique led to minimising the risk of device failure reported by other studies , in particular with respect to the rate of DOCE and scaffold thrombosis AIMS The MeRes-1 trial sought to study the safety and effectiveness of a novel sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold ( MeRes100 BRS ) in treating de novo native coronary artery lesions by clinical evaluation and using multiple imaging modalities . METHODS AND RESULTS The MeRes-1 first-in-human trial was a single-arm , prospect i ve , multicentre study , which enrolled 108 patients with de novo coronary artery lesions ( 116 scaffolds were deployed to treat 116 lesions in 108 patients ) . At six months , quantitative coronary angiography revealed in-scaffold late lumen loss of 0.15±0.23 mm with 0 % binary restenosis . Optical coherence tomography demonstrated minimum scaffold area ( 6.86±1.73 mm2 ) and percentage neointimal strut coverage ( 99.30 % ) . Quantitative intravascular ultrasound analysis confirmed a 0.14±0.16 mm2 neointimal hyperplasia area . At one year , major adverse cardiac events , a composite of cardiac death , any myocardial infa rct ion and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation , occurred in only one patient ( 0.93 % ) and there was no scaffold thrombosis reported . At one year , computed tomography angiography demonstrated that all scaffolds were patent and in-scaffold mean percentage area stenosis was 11.33±26.57 % . CONCLUSIONS The MeRes-1 trial demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of MeRes100 BRS . The favourable clin 
    Output:
    
At mid-term follow-up , BVS was associated with an increased risk of TLF , MI , TLR and definite/probable device thrombosis , but this did not result in an increased risk of all-cause mortality