Premium
Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus‐eluting stent implantation in a real‐world population
Author(s) -
Costopoulos Charis,
Latib Azeem,
Naganuma Toru,
Miyazaki Tadashi,
Sato Katsumasa,
Figini Filippo,
Sticchi Alessandro,
Carlino Mauro,
Chieffo Alaide,
Montorfano Matteo,
Colombo Antonio
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.25569
Subject(s) - medicine , everolimus , bioresorbable scaffold , population , stent , scaffold , drug eluting stent , surgery , percutaneous coronary intervention , biomedical engineering , restenosis , myocardial infarction , environmental health
Objectives To compare the early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) and cobalt chromium everolimus‐eluting stents in real‐world patients with mostly complex disease. Background BVS represents the most interesting development in the drug‐eluting stent field over recent years with promising results emerging from clinical trials. Available data however on the use of the ABSORB in real‐world patients is limited. Methods All patients ( n = 92) treated with BVS and 1296 patients treated with EES were included in this study. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, yielding 92 patient pairs (BVS = 92 patients with 137 lesions and EES = 92 patients with 124 lesions). Clinical outcomes were examined between the 2 groups at 6‐months. Results In both groups, most lesions were classified as either B2 or C (83.9% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.19). Predilatation (97.8% vs. 75.8%, P < 0.01) as well as postdilation (99.3% vs. 77.4%, P < 0.01) was more common in the BVS group. Clinical outcomes at 6‐months were similar between the two groups with respect to both target lesion revascularization (3.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.41) and major adverse cardiac events (defined as the composite of target vessel revascularization, follow‐up myocardial infraction and all‐cause death) (3.3% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.19). Conclusions ABSORB BVS for the treatment of complex lesions appears to be associated with good procedural and early clinical outcomes similar to those observed with conventional drug‐eluting stents. Larger studies with long‐term follow‐up are required in order to fully assess the role of BVS in the treatment of such lesions and how this compares with that of conventional stents. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.