Background Data regarding bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) use in coronary bifurcation lesions are limited. The aim of this study was to compare mid-term clinical outcomes of all-comer patients treated with BVS versus everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for bifurcation lesions. Methods A total of 351 non-left-main bifurcation lesions in 323 all-comer patients were treated either with BVS (166 bifurcations in 147 patients) or EES (185 bifurcations in 176 patients). The study endpoint was propensity-score adjusted target lesion failure (TLF) defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Results Intravascular ultrasound and/or optical coherence tomography were more frequently utilized in the BVS group as compared to the EES one (89.8% versus 13.5%, p < 0.001). In the BVS group, both predilation (97.6%) and postdilation (100%) of the main branch were performed in almost all-cases. Provisional single-stenting strategy was more frequently used in the BVS group (79.5% versus 68.1%, p = 0.016). At the median follow-up of 698 days, there was no significant difference in the propensity score adjusted analysis for TLF (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.47 to 3.03, p = 0.718). A similar result was obtained when performing propensity-score matched analysis. Conclusions BVS use for coronary bifurcation lesions in real world patients was associated with comparable TLF rates up to 2-year follow-up as compared to EES. The high incidence of intravascular imaging guidance, meticulous lesion preparation, and aggressive postdilation of BVS treated lesions may have played a role in achieving equivalence to EES.
- Bioresorbable vascular scaffold
- Coronary bifurcation
- Intravascular imaging guidance
- Lesion preparation
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine