Abstract
Objectives: To compare the early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) and cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with mostly complex disease. Background: BVS represents the most interesting development in the drug-eluting stent field over recent years with promising results emerging from clinical trials. Available data however on the use of the ABSORB in real-world patients is limited. Methods: All patients (n = 92) treated with BVS and 1296 patients treated with EES were included in this study. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, yielding 92 patient pairs (BVS = 92 patients with 137 lesions and EES = 92 patients with 124 lesions). Clinical outcomes were examined between the 2 groups at 6-months. Results: In both groups, most lesions were classified as either B2 or C (83.9% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.19). Predilatation (97.8% vs. 75.8%, P <0.01) as well as postdilation (99.3% vs. 77.4%, P <0.01) was more common in the BVS group. Clinical outcomes at 6-months were similar between the two groups with respect to both target lesion revascularization (3.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.41) and major adverse cardiac events (defined as the composite of target vessel revascularization, follow-up myocardial infraction and all-cause death) (3.3% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.19). Conclusions: ABSORB BVS for the treatment of complex lesions appears to be associated with good procedural and early clinical outcomes similar to those observed with conventional drug-eluting stents. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are required in order to fully assess the role of BVS in the treatment of such lesions and how this compares with that of conventional stents.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | E10-E15 |
| Journal | Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions |
| Volume | 85 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 1 2015 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Bifurcation
- Bioresorbable vascular scaffold
- Clinical outcomes
- Diffuse disease
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus-eluting stent implantation in a real-world population. / Costopoulos, Charis; Latib, Azeem; Naganuma, Toru; Miyazaki, Tadashi; Sato, Katsumasa; Figini, Filippo; Sticchi, Alessandro; Carlino, Mauro; Chieffo, Alaide; Montorfano, Matteo; Colombo, Antonio.
In: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 85, No. 1, 01.01.2015, p. E10-E15.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus-eluting stent implantation in a real-world population
AU - Costopoulos, Charis
AU - Latib, Azeem
AU - Naganuma, Toru
AU - Miyazaki, Tadashi
AU - Sato, Katsumasa
AU - Figini, Filippo
AU - Sticchi, Alessandro
AU - Carlino, Mauro
AU - Chieffo, Alaide
AU - Montorfano, Matteo
AU - Colombo, Antonio
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - Objectives: To compare the early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) and cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with mostly complex disease. Background: BVS represents the most interesting development in the drug-eluting stent field over recent years with promising results emerging from clinical trials. Available data however on the use of the ABSORB in real-world patients is limited. Methods: All patients (n = 92) treated with BVS and 1296 patients treated with EES were included in this study. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, yielding 92 patient pairs (BVS = 92 patients with 137 lesions and EES = 92 patients with 124 lesions). Clinical outcomes were examined between the 2 groups at 6-months. Results: In both groups, most lesions were classified as either B2 or C (83.9% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.19). Predilatation (97.8% vs. 75.8%, P <0.01) as well as postdilation (99.3% vs. 77.4%, P <0.01) was more common in the BVS group. Clinical outcomes at 6-months were similar between the two groups with respect to both target lesion revascularization (3.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.41) and major adverse cardiac events (defined as the composite of target vessel revascularization, follow-up myocardial infraction and all-cause death) (3.3% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.19). Conclusions: ABSORB BVS for the treatment of complex lesions appears to be associated with good procedural and early clinical outcomes similar to those observed with conventional drug-eluting stents. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are required in order to fully assess the role of BVS in the treatment of such lesions and how this compares with that of conventional stents.
AB - Objectives: To compare the early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) and cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with mostly complex disease. Background: BVS represents the most interesting development in the drug-eluting stent field over recent years with promising results emerging from clinical trials. Available data however on the use of the ABSORB in real-world patients is limited. Methods: All patients (n = 92) treated with BVS and 1296 patients treated with EES were included in this study. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, yielding 92 patient pairs (BVS = 92 patients with 137 lesions and EES = 92 patients with 124 lesions). Clinical outcomes were examined between the 2 groups at 6-months. Results: In both groups, most lesions were classified as either B2 or C (83.9% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.19). Predilatation (97.8% vs. 75.8%, P <0.01) as well as postdilation (99.3% vs. 77.4%, P <0.01) was more common in the BVS group. Clinical outcomes at 6-months were similar between the two groups with respect to both target lesion revascularization (3.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.41) and major adverse cardiac events (defined as the composite of target vessel revascularization, follow-up myocardial infraction and all-cause death) (3.3% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.19). Conclusions: ABSORB BVS for the treatment of complex lesions appears to be associated with good procedural and early clinical outcomes similar to those observed with conventional drug-eluting stents. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are required in order to fully assess the role of BVS in the treatment of such lesions and how this compares with that of conventional stents.
KW - Bifurcation
KW - Bioresorbable vascular scaffold
KW - Clinical outcomes
KW - Diffuse disease
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923229471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923229471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ccd.25569
DO - 10.1002/ccd.25569
M3 - Article
VL - 85
SP - E10-E15
JO - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
SN - 1522-1946
IS - 1
ER -