Premium
Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus‐eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in‐stent restenosis: 1‐Year follow‐up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE‐ISR Study)
Author(s) -
Moscarella Elisabetta,
Tanaka Akihito,
Ielasi Alfonso,
Cortese Bernardo,
Coscarelli Sebastian,
De Angelis Maria Carmen,
Piraino Davide,
Latib Azeem,
Grigis Giulietta,
Bianchi Renatomaria,
Buccheri Dario,
Calabrò Paolo,
Tespili Maurizio,
Silva Orrego Pedro,
Colombo Antonio,
Varricchio Attilio
Publication year - 2018
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.27473
Subject(s) - medicine , everolimus , propensity score matching , restenosis , percutaneous coronary intervention , stent , drug eluting stent , cardiology , surgery , myocardial infarction
Objectives to compare the 1‐year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), everolimus‐eluting stent (EES), and drug‐eluting balloon (DEB) for in‐stent restenosis (ISR) treatment. Background BVS has been proposed as alternative for ISR treatment. To date a direct comparison between BVS and DES or DEB for ISR treatment is lacking. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all ISR lesions treated with BVS, DEB, and EES from January 2012 to December 2014. A total of 548 lesions (498 patients) were included. By applying two propensity‐score matching, 93 lesions treated with BVS were compared with 93 lesions treated with DEB, and 100 lesions treated with BVS were compared to 100 lesions treated with EES. Results At 1‐year follow‐up the incidence of device‐oriented cardiovascular events (DOCE) and its components did not significantly differ between BVS and DEB (DOCE: 10.9 vs. 11.8%, HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.33–2.52; P = 0.86; Cardiac death: 2.2 vs. 1.2%, HR, 1.74, 95% CI 0.16–18.80, P = 0.65; ID‐TLR: 8.9 vs. 10.7%, HR, 0.81, 95% CI 0.27–2.48, P = 0.71; TV‐MI: 3.3 vs. 1.2%, HR, 2.39, 95% CI 0.27–21.32, P = 0.43) and BVS vs. EES (DOCE: 10.1 vs. 5.2% HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 0.63–5.25; P = 0.27; Cardiac death: 3.0 vs. 1.1%; HR, 2.83, 95% CI 0.29–27.4, P = 0.37; ID‐TLR: 7.2 vs. 4.2%, HR, 1.57, 95% CI 0.47–5.23, P = 0.46; TV‐MI: 3.1 vs. 0%). Conclusion At 1‐year follow‐up the use of BVS as ISR treatment is associated with a higher, even if not significant, DOCE rate compared with EES while a similar rate compared to DEB.