6/28/23, 12:05 AM AIDA Pathway Feedback Search Clinical Topics Home Studies AIDA AIDA Disease Coronary artery disease Trial question What is the role of bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients undergoing PCI? Study design Multi-center Single blinded RCT Population Characteristics of study participants 26.0% female N = 1845 74.0% male 1845 patients (475 female, 1370 male) Inclusion criteria: patients with coronary artery disease who were undergoing PCI Key exclusion criteria: target lesions > 70 mm in length, a reference vessel diameter < 2.5 mm or > 4.0 mm, bifurcation lesions for which the use of two stents or scaffolds was planned, and in- stent restenosis Interventions N=924 bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents (everolimus-eluting) N=921 metallic stents (everolimus-eluting) Primary outcome Target-vessel failure https://web.pathway.md/studies/recJTDVOiOnpHsUyT 1/2 6/28/23, 12:05 AM AIDA Pathway 11.7 % 11.7 10.7 8.8 % 5.8 % Difference not exceeding nonferiority margin 2.9 % 0.0 % Bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents Metallic stents Difference not exceeding nonferiority margin in target-vessel failure (11.7% vs. 10.7%; HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48) Secondary outcomes Significant increase in definite or probable device thrombosis (3.5% vs. 0.9%; HR 3.87, 95% CI 1.78 to 8.42) No significant difference in the rate of cardiac death by 2 years (2% vs. 2.7%; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.44) Significant increase in target-vessel myocardial infarction (5.5% vs. 3.2%; HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.53) Conclusion In patients with coronary artery disease who were undergoing PCI, bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents were noninferior to metallic stents with respect to a target-vessel failure. Reference Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH et al. Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 15;376(24):2319-2328. Open reference URL https://web.pathway.md/studies/recJTDVOiOnpHsUyT 2/2