Cargando…

Comparison of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold to the Xience durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in routine clinical practice: a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

INTRODUCTION: Most clinical trials related to bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) technology are limited to a highly selected patient population. AIM: To evaluate early and long-term clinical outcomes of the Absorb everolimus-eluting BVS compared to the everolimus-eluting metallic XIENCE V stent i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Orlik, Bartłomiej, Milewski, Krzysztof, Derbisz, Kamil, Jelonek, Michał, Chrząszcz, Patrycja, Beil, Sonia, Młodziankowski, Adam, Picheta, Wojciech, Buszman, Piotr P., Buszman, Paweł E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30008767
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aic.2018.76406
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Most clinical trials related to bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) technology are limited to a highly selected patient population. AIM: To evaluate early and long-term clinical outcomes of the Absorb everolimus-eluting BVS compared to the everolimus-eluting metallic XIENCE V stent in routine clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective propensity score-matched comparative study, comprising 76 patients treated with a bare metal stents (BMS) and 501 with a XIENCE stent. Patients included in the study had stable and unstable angina and both types of myocardial infarction (STEMI and NSTEMI) as an indication for intervention and at least one significant de novo lesion in native coronary arteries. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 400 days in both groups. After propensity score matching for patient baseline characteristics, only higher rate of predilatation, predominantly treated left anterior descending artery (LAD) and lower number of used stents in the BVS group remained statistically significant. After adjustment there was no difference in type of treated lesions. The MACE rate did not differ between BVS and drug-eluting stents (DES) groups (7.2% vs. 11.15%, respectively; p = 0.17). The TVR was 2.9% in both groups. Except in the periprocedural period, there were no deaths or MI in the BVS group. There was no stent thrombosis in either studied group. CONCLUSIONS: In routine clinical practice throughout long-term follow-up, clinical outcomes of patients who successfully received the Absorb BVS did not differ from those of patients who received the Xience stent. Longer follow-up data are required to determine whether these findings will persist beyond one year.