To the Editor: Wykrzykowska et al. (June 15 issue)1 report the results of AIDA (Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers Trial), in which investigators compared an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb) with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience) in patients who were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The results of this trial are consistent with previous observations that have shown an increased risk of device thrombosis among patients receiving the bioresorbable scaffold.2 The causes of the higher rate of thrombosis with bioresorbable scaffolds than with metallic stents are only partly understood. Despite the use of better implantation techniques, different trials have consistently . . .

中文翻译：

---

常规PCI中的生物可吸收支架与金属支架

致编辑：Wykrzykowska等。（6月15日，第1期）报道了AIDA（阿姆斯特丹研究人员发起的Absorb Strategy All-Comers试验）的结果，研究人员比较了患者使用依维莫司洗脱的生物可吸收血管支架（Absorb）与依维莫司洗脱的金属支架（Xience）的情况。谁正在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）。该试验的结果与以前的观察结果一致，这些观察结果表明接受生物可吸收支架的患者发生装置血栓的风险增加。2仅部分理解了生物可吸收支架比金属支架引起血栓形成率更高的原因。尽管使用了更好的植入技术，但不同的试验始终如一。。。