RESUMO
Objective: To systemically review the safety and efficacy of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) versus cobalt chromium-everolimus eluting stent (CoCr-EES) for treating the patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We searched relevant literatures in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang database from 2008-01 to 2015-10, meanwhile, collected published data and randomized controlled trials from meeting abstracts and websites to compare Absorb BVS and CoCr-EES for treating CAD patients. The quality of literatures were assessed and extracted by modiifed Jadad score, Meta-analysis was conducted by STATA 12.0 soft ware. Results: There were 4 eligible trials with 3,389 patients were enrolled. Absorb BVS group, n=2,164 and CoCr-EES group, n=1,225. During the mean of 1.1 years follow-up period, the following incidences were similar between 2 groups:target lesion failure (OR=1.29, 95%CI 0.95-1.74, P=0.10), all cause death (OR=1.31, 95%CI 0.60-2.87, P=0.50), cardiac death (OR=1.38, 95%CI 0.45-4.24, P=0.57), myocardial infarction (OR=1.30, 95%CI 0.93-1.80, P=0.12), deifnite or probable stent thrombosis (OR=2.08, 95%CI 0.95-4.54, P=0.07), re-vascularization (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.80-1.33, P=0.81), target lesion re-vascularization (OR=1.06, 95%CI 0.67-1.66, P=0.81) and the patient-oriented composite endpoint (OR=0.95, 95%CI 0.66-1.35, P=0.76). Conclusion: Absorb BVS and CoCr-EES had the similar safety and efifcacy for treating the low and moderate risk CAD patients who had angina, ischemia while without symptoms. The longer period of follow-up study and larger randomized, controlled clinical trials were needed for Absorb BVS application in clinical practice.