TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical Outcomes After Implantation of Overlapping Bioresorbable Scaffolds vs New Generation Everolimus Eluting Stents
AU - Panoulas, Vasileios F.
AU - Kawamoto, Hiroyoshi
AU - Sato, Katsumasa
AU - Miyazaki, Tadashi
AU - Naganuma, Toru
AU - Sticchi, Alessandro
AU - Latib, Azeem
AU - Colombo, Antonio
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Sociedad Española de Cardiología
PY - 2016/12/1
Y1 - 2016/12/1
N2 - Introduction and objectives There is limited evidence on procedural and clinical outcomes in patients treated with overlapping bioresorbable scaffolds vs overlapping everolimus-eluting stents. We evaluated the outcomes of propensity-matched patients treated with overlapping scaffolds vs everolimus-eluting stents. Methods After propensity matching, 70 consecutive stable angina patients treated with overlapping bioresorbable scaffolds and 70 patients treated with overlapping new generation everolimus stents were included in this study. The primary outcome was the 1-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization. Results Patients in the 2 groups had similar age (scaffold vs stent: 64.5 ± 10.3 vs 66 ± 9.7 years; P = .381), sex, diabetes, previous cardiovascular history, and SYNTAX score (scaffold vs stent: 18.6 ± 9.2 vs 19.4 ± 10.4; P = .635). Postprocedural acute gain was significantly lower in patients treated with scaffolds (1.82 ± 0.66 vs 2.03 ± 0.68 mm; P = .033). At 1-year follow up, the estimated major adverse cardiovascular event rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups (scaffold vs stent: 14.5% vs 14.6%; Plog-rank = .661). Similarly, no significant differences were seen in 1-year rates of target vessel (scaffold vs stent: 14.5% vs 10%; Plog-rank = .816) or target lesion revascularization (scaffold vs stent: 9.7% vs 8.3%; Plog-rank = .815). Conclusions Treating long lesions with overlapping scaffolds is feasible with acceptable 1-year outcomes. Full English text available from: www.revespcardiol.org/en
AB - Introduction and objectives There is limited evidence on procedural and clinical outcomes in patients treated with overlapping bioresorbable scaffolds vs overlapping everolimus-eluting stents. We evaluated the outcomes of propensity-matched patients treated with overlapping scaffolds vs everolimus-eluting stents. Methods After propensity matching, 70 consecutive stable angina patients treated with overlapping bioresorbable scaffolds and 70 patients treated with overlapping new generation everolimus stents were included in this study. The primary outcome was the 1-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization. Results Patients in the 2 groups had similar age (scaffold vs stent: 64.5 ± 10.3 vs 66 ± 9.7 years; P = .381), sex, diabetes, previous cardiovascular history, and SYNTAX score (scaffold vs stent: 18.6 ± 9.2 vs 19.4 ± 10.4; P = .635). Postprocedural acute gain was significantly lower in patients treated with scaffolds (1.82 ± 0.66 vs 2.03 ± 0.68 mm; P = .033). At 1-year follow up, the estimated major adverse cardiovascular event rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups (scaffold vs stent: 14.5% vs 14.6%; Plog-rank = .661). Similarly, no significant differences were seen in 1-year rates of target vessel (scaffold vs stent: 14.5% vs 10%; Plog-rank = .816) or target lesion revascularization (scaffold vs stent: 9.7% vs 8.3%; Plog-rank = .815). Conclusions Treating long lesions with overlapping scaffolds is feasible with acceptable 1-year outcomes. Full English text available from: www.revespcardiol.org/en
KW - Bioresorbable scaffold
KW - Drug eluting stent
KW - Everolimus-eluting stent
KW - Overlap
KW - Strut
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971631230&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84971631230&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.recesp.2016.02.029
DO - 10.1016/j.recesp.2016.02.029
M3 - Article
C2 - 27264490
AN - SCOPUS:84971631230
SN - 0300-8932
VL - 69
SP - 1135
EP - 1143
JO - Revista Espanola de Cardiologia
JF - Revista Espanola de Cardiologia
IS - 12
ER -