Dr Laura Kerkmeijer (Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, NL) discusses the clinical outcomes at 2 years of the AIDA trial.
1. What is AIDA and what did it aim to address?
2. What data are you presenting at CRT 2020?
3. What were the thrombosis rates?
4. Have we learned anything further about BVS technology?
5. Does BVS technology have a future?
Filmed on location at CRT 2020.
Interviewer: Rebekah Meola
Videographer: Charlie McClanahan
Transcript Below :
Question 1 : What is AIDA and what did it aim to address?
[Kerkmeijer] AIDA is a trial that we investigate the Absorb BVS compared to Xience in a patient. At the time we started this trial, there was no post-market trial that evaluates the performance of the Absorb BVS in an all-comers population, so that's why we conducted this trial.
Question 2 : What data are you presenting at CRT 2020?
[Kerkmeijer] I had the opportunity to present the performance of the Absorb in acute coronary syndrome patients compared to no ACS patients. And, like in the general population we see the same results like there was no difference in target vessel failure, but also ACS patients have a higher rate of target vessel MI and device thrombosis when they were treated with the absorb, compared to the Xience.
Question 3 : What were the thrombosis rates?
[Kerkmeijer] There was a higher thrombosis rate than the absorb arm through all the clinical presentations. It was 4.3% in the ACS arm and it was only 1.7% in the Xience arm, in patients presenting with ACS.
Question 4 : Have we learned anything further about BVS technology?
[Kerkmeijer] So far, we have learned a lot and I think especially about how to go forward with this technology. We need to be careful and not say this, "okay it's a good device we should implant this in every patient, while it was only tested in selected patients." We need to first find out the right implantation technique for this device and also, we need to understand more the costs of these device thrombosis later on.
Question 5 : Does BVS technology have a future?
[Kerkmeijer] Yeah, I think it has a future, there are a lot of companies invested in this technology. I think its still a long way for the BVS to be a workhorse stand in the CATH lab, because you need this different implantation technique, maybe you need also imaging, and we don't do that in the daily clinical practise. So, we are just still a long way, but I think eventually we get there because in theory this is such a nice device but, it needs to work first and have the safety that drug-eluting stents have now.