TY - JOUR
T1 - Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis
T2 - 1-Year follow-up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE-ISR Study)
AU - Moscarella, Elisabetta
AU - Tanaka, Akihito
AU - Ielasi, Alfonso
AU - Cortese, Bernardo
AU - Coscarelli, Sebastian
AU - De Angelis, Maria Carmen
AU - Piraino, Davide
AU - Latib, Azeem
AU - Grigis, Giulietta
AU - Bianchi, Renatomaria
AU - Buccheri, Dario
AU - Calabrò, Paolo
AU - Tespili, Maurizio
AU - Silva Orrego, Pedro
AU - Colombo, Antonio
AU - Varricchio, Attilio
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2018/10/1
Y1 - 2018/10/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - bioresorbable vascular scaffold
KW - drug eluting balloon
KW - drug eluting stent
KW - in stent restenosis
KW - percutaneous coronary intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047554547&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047554547&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ccd.27473
DO - 10.1002/ccd.27473
M3 - Article
C2 - 29356269
AN - SCOPUS:85047554547
SN - 1522-1946
VL - 92
SP - 668
EP - 677
JO - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 4
ER -