Procedural Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Bioresorbable Scaffolds vs New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents

Katsumasa Sato, Azeem Latib, Vasileios F. Panoulas, Hiroyoshi Kawamoto, Toru Naganuma, Tadashi Miyazaki, Antonio Colombo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: There is limited experience regarding the feasibility of the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in "all-comer" populations. We evaluated the impact of BVS use on procedural factors and clinical outcomes compared with the new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Methods: We analyzed procedural feasibility and outcome data from 292 consecutive patients treated with either a new-generation DES or a BVS between May 2008 and May 2014 using propensity-score (PS) matching. Results: After PS matching, 96 patients treated with BVSs and 96 patients treated with DESs were selected. Lesion characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Maximum balloon size after dilation was larger and maximum inflation pressure was higher in the BVS group, despite similar quantitative coronary angiography results. Procedure time (114.7 ± 39.2 minutes vs 90.4 ± 38.2 minutes; P <0.001), amount of contrast medium used (268.3 ± 104.2 mL vs 229.2 ± 122.2 mL; P= 0.02), and fluoroscopy time (42.4 ± 17.9 minutes vs 34.5 ± 19.7 minutes; P <0.001) were significantly increased in the BVS group compared with the DES group. In multivariable analysis, BVS use was identified as an independent predictor of long (> 120 minutes) procedure time (odds ratio, 7.83; 95% confidence interval, 2.81-25.78; P <0.001). Procedural success (93.6% BVS vs 95.7% DES; P= 0.51) and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (10.2% BVS vs 10.5% DES; P= 0.82) were similar between the groups. Conclusions: In real-world patients with predominantly complex lesions treated with BVSs, procedural success rates and short-term outcomes similar to those seen in patients treated with DESs are observed at the expense of longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)328-334
Number of pages7
JournalCanadian Journal of Cardiology
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1 2015

Fingerprint

Drug-Eluting Stents
Blood Vessels
Propensity Score
Fluoroscopy
Economic Inflation
Coronary Angiography
Dilatation
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Pressure
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Procedural Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Bioresorbable Scaffolds vs New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. / Sato, Katsumasa; Latib, Azeem; Panoulas, Vasileios F.; Kawamoto, Hiroyoshi; Naganuma, Toru; Miyazaki, Tadashi; Colombo, Antonio.

In: Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 31, No. 3, 01.03.2015, p. 328-334.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sato, Katsumasa ; Latib, Azeem ; Panoulas, Vasileios F. ; Kawamoto, Hiroyoshi ; Naganuma, Toru ; Miyazaki, Tadashi ; Colombo, Antonio. / Procedural Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Bioresorbable Scaffolds vs New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents. In: Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 2015 ; Vol. 31, No. 3. pp. 328-334.
@article{6a9c3ab8b6a646be908f79d96afa4f31,
title = "Procedural Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Bioresorbable Scaffolds vs New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents",
abstract = "Background: There is limited experience regarding the feasibility of the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in {"}all-comer{"} populations. We evaluated the impact of BVS use on procedural factors and clinical outcomes compared with the new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Methods: We analyzed procedural feasibility and outcome data from 292 consecutive patients treated with either a new-generation DES or a BVS between May 2008 and May 2014 using propensity-score (PS) matching. Results: After PS matching, 96 patients treated with BVSs and 96 patients treated with DESs were selected. Lesion characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Maximum balloon size after dilation was larger and maximum inflation pressure was higher in the BVS group, despite similar quantitative coronary angiography results. Procedure time (114.7 ± 39.2 minutes vs 90.4 ± 38.2 minutes; P <0.001), amount of contrast medium used (268.3 ± 104.2 mL vs 229.2 ± 122.2 mL; P= 0.02), and fluoroscopy time (42.4 ± 17.9 minutes vs 34.5 ± 19.7 minutes; P <0.001) were significantly increased in the BVS group compared with the DES group. In multivariable analysis, BVS use was identified as an independent predictor of long (> 120 minutes) procedure time (odds ratio, 7.83; 95{\%} confidence interval, 2.81-25.78; P <0.001). Procedural success (93.6{\%} BVS vs 95.7{\%} DES; P= 0.51) and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (10.2{\%} BVS vs 10.5{\%} DES; P= 0.82) were similar between the groups. Conclusions: In real-world patients with predominantly complex lesions treated with BVSs, procedural success rates and short-term outcomes similar to those seen in patients treated with DESs are observed at the expense of longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.",
author = "Katsumasa Sato and Azeem Latib and Panoulas, {Vasileios F.} and Hiroyoshi Kawamoto and Toru Naganuma and Tadashi Miyazaki and Antonio Colombo",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cjca.2014.12.001",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "328--334",
journal = "Canadian Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0828-282X",
publisher = "Pulsus Group Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Procedural Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Bioresorbable Scaffolds vs New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents

AU - Sato, Katsumasa

AU - Latib, Azeem

AU - Panoulas, Vasileios F.

AU - Kawamoto, Hiroyoshi

AU - Naganuma, Toru

AU - Miyazaki, Tadashi

AU - Colombo, Antonio

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Background: There is limited experience regarding the feasibility of the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in "all-comer" populations. We evaluated the impact of BVS use on procedural factors and clinical outcomes compared with the new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Methods: We analyzed procedural feasibility and outcome data from 292 consecutive patients treated with either a new-generation DES or a BVS between May 2008 and May 2014 using propensity-score (PS) matching. Results: After PS matching, 96 patients treated with BVSs and 96 patients treated with DESs were selected. Lesion characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Maximum balloon size after dilation was larger and maximum inflation pressure was higher in the BVS group, despite similar quantitative coronary angiography results. Procedure time (114.7 ± 39.2 minutes vs 90.4 ± 38.2 minutes; P <0.001), amount of contrast medium used (268.3 ± 104.2 mL vs 229.2 ± 122.2 mL; P= 0.02), and fluoroscopy time (42.4 ± 17.9 minutes vs 34.5 ± 19.7 minutes; P <0.001) were significantly increased in the BVS group compared with the DES group. In multivariable analysis, BVS use was identified as an independent predictor of long (> 120 minutes) procedure time (odds ratio, 7.83; 95% confidence interval, 2.81-25.78; P <0.001). Procedural success (93.6% BVS vs 95.7% DES; P= 0.51) and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (10.2% BVS vs 10.5% DES; P= 0.82) were similar between the groups. Conclusions: In real-world patients with predominantly complex lesions treated with BVSs, procedural success rates and short-term outcomes similar to those seen in patients treated with DESs are observed at the expense of longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.

AB - Background: There is limited experience regarding the feasibility of the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in "all-comer" populations. We evaluated the impact of BVS use on procedural factors and clinical outcomes compared with the new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Methods: We analyzed procedural feasibility and outcome data from 292 consecutive patients treated with either a new-generation DES or a BVS between May 2008 and May 2014 using propensity-score (PS) matching. Results: After PS matching, 96 patients treated with BVSs and 96 patients treated with DESs were selected. Lesion characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Maximum balloon size after dilation was larger and maximum inflation pressure was higher in the BVS group, despite similar quantitative coronary angiography results. Procedure time (114.7 ± 39.2 minutes vs 90.4 ± 38.2 minutes; P <0.001), amount of contrast medium used (268.3 ± 104.2 mL vs 229.2 ± 122.2 mL; P= 0.02), and fluoroscopy time (42.4 ± 17.9 minutes vs 34.5 ± 19.7 minutes; P <0.001) were significantly increased in the BVS group compared with the DES group. In multivariable analysis, BVS use was identified as an independent predictor of long (> 120 minutes) procedure time (odds ratio, 7.83; 95% confidence interval, 2.81-25.78; P <0.001). Procedural success (93.6% BVS vs 95.7% DES; P= 0.51) and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (10.2% BVS vs 10.5% DES; P= 0.82) were similar between the groups. Conclusions: In real-world patients with predominantly complex lesions treated with BVSs, procedural success rates and short-term outcomes similar to those seen in patients treated with DESs are observed at the expense of longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923892471&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923892471&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cjca.2014.12.001

DO - 10.1016/j.cjca.2014.12.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 25670621

AN - SCOPUS:84923892471

VL - 31

SP - 328

EP - 334

JO - Canadian Journal of Cardiology

JF - Canadian Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0828-282X

IS - 3

ER -