eISSN: 1897-4295
ISSN: 1734-9338
Advances in Interventional Cardiology/Postępy w Kardiologii Interwencyjnej
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Search
Editorial Policies
Sarajevo Declaration on Integrity and Visibility of Scholarly Publications
1/2020
vol. 16
 
Share:
Send email
Share:
abstract:
Original paper

Comparison of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Piotr Desperak
1
,
Michał Hawranek
1
,
Piotr A. Chodór
2
,
Andrzej Świątkowski
2
,
Jacek Kowalczyk
2
,
Andrzej Lekston
1
,
Mariusz Gąsior
1

  1. 3rd Department of Cardiology, Silesian Center for Heart Diseases in Zabrze, School of Medicine with the Division of Dentistry in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  2. Department of Cardiology, Congenital Heart Diseases and Electrotherapy, Silesian Center for Heart Diseases in Zabrze, School of Medicine with the Division of Dentistry in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
Adv Interv Cardiol 2020; 16, 1 (59): 49–57
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/aic.2020.93912
Online publish date: 2020/04/03
View full text Get citation
 
Introduction
Despite the withdrawal of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) from clinical use, continuous observation of BVS-treated patients is necessary. In the vast majority of clinical trials, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were excluded from the analysis.

Aim
To compare the early and long-term outcomes of the BVS with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with STEMI.

Material and methods
Consecutive patients treated with BVS or EES in our center were screened. For analysis, only patients with STEMI were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the target lesion failure at 12 and 24 months. The secondary endpoints encompass occurrence of the patient-oriented cardiovascular endpoint (PoCE), stent thrombosis (ST), device, and procedural success.

Results
Between 2012 and 2016, 2,137 patients were hospitalized for STEMI. Of these, 123 patients received the BVS (163 scaffolds; 151 lesions), whereas in 141 patients the EES (203 stents; 176 lesions) was implanted. The median follow-up was 931 ±514 days. The primary endpoint at 12 months occurred in 9.7% in the BVS group and in 8.5% in the EES group (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90–7.56; p = 0.076). At 24 months the incidence of the primary endpoint was 15.2% in the BVS group and 14.9% in the EES group (HR = 2.46; 95% CI: 0.85–7.07; p = 0.095). The rates of PoCE, ST, device, and procedural success were also comparable in both groups.

Conclusions
STEMI patients treated with the BVS showed statistically similar rates of primary and secondary endpoints compared with the EES.

keywords:

bioresorbable vascular scaffold, primary percutaneous coronary intervention, acute myocardial infarction/ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, everolimus-eluting stent
Termedia
About us Contact
Copyright notice Privacy policy Advertising policy Contact us
Quick links
Journals Books eBooks Events
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.