open access

Vol 23, No 4 (2016)
INTERVENTION/VALVULAR HEART DISEASE - Original articles
Published online: 2016-08-01
Get Citation

Impact of postdilatation on performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared with everolimus-eluting stents: A propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter “real-world” registry

Yoichi Imori, Fabrizio D'Ascenzo, Tommaso Gori, Thomas Münzel, Fabrizio Ugo, Gianluca Campo, Enrico Cerrato, L. Christian Napp, Mario Iannaccone, Jelena R. Ghadri, Elycia Kazemian, Ronald K. Binder, Milosz Jaguszewski, Adam Csordas, Piera Capasso, Simone Biscaglia, Fedrico Conrotto, Ferdinando Varbella, Roberto Garbo, Fiorenzo Gaita, Paul Erne, Thomas F. Lüscher, Claudio Moretti, Antonio H. Frangieh, Christian Templin
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2016.0052
·
Pubmed: 27515481
·
Cardiol J 2016;23(4):374-383.

open access

Vol 23, No 4 (2016)
INTERVENTION/VALVULAR HEART DISEASE - Original articles
Published online: 2016-08-01

Abstract

Background: Safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and the role of postdilatation on outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients compared with those of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) remain unknown. The aim of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of BRS with EES in ACS and to investigate the role of BRS postdilatation.

Methods: Consecutive ACS patients undergoing BRS implantation in 8 centers were com­pared with those with EES before and after propensity score matching. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were the primary endpoint. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to postdilatation after BRS implantation. We enrolled 303 BRS and 748 EES patients; 215 from each group were com­pared after matching, and 117 (55.2%) BRS patients were treated with postdilatation.

Results: After a median follow-up of 24.0 months, MACE rates were higher in BRS patients than in EES patients (9.3% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), mainly driven by TLR (6.1% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis increased in the BRS group (2.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.01). How­ever, after sensitivity analysis, MACE rates in BRS patients with postdilatation were signifi­cantly lower than in those without, comparable to EES patients (6.0% vs. 12.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for TLR (3.4% vs. 8.4% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis rates were higher in both the BRS groups than in EES patients (2.6% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045).

Conclusions: Postdilatation appears effective when using BRS in ACS patients. MACE rates are comparable to those of EES, although scaffold thrombosis is not negligible. Randomized prospective studies are required for further investigation.

Abstract

Background: Safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and the role of postdilatation on outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients compared with those of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) remain unknown. The aim of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of BRS with EES in ACS and to investigate the role of BRS postdilatation.

Methods: Consecutive ACS patients undergoing BRS implantation in 8 centers were com­pared with those with EES before and after propensity score matching. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were the primary endpoint. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to postdilatation after BRS implantation. We enrolled 303 BRS and 748 EES patients; 215 from each group were com­pared after matching, and 117 (55.2%) BRS patients were treated with postdilatation.

Results: After a median follow-up of 24.0 months, MACE rates were higher in BRS patients than in EES patients (9.3% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), mainly driven by TLR (6.1% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis increased in the BRS group (2.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.01). How­ever, after sensitivity analysis, MACE rates in BRS patients with postdilatation were signifi­cantly lower than in those without, comparable to EES patients (6.0% vs. 12.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for TLR (3.4% vs. 8.4% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis rates were higher in both the BRS groups than in EES patients (2.6% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045).

Conclusions: Postdilatation appears effective when using BRS in ACS patients. MACE rates are comparable to those of EES, although scaffold thrombosis is not negligible. Randomized prospective studies are required for further investigation.

Get Citation

Keywords

angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, coronary restenosis, thrombosis, cardiac death

Supplementary Files (1)
Supplementary Material
Download
251KB
About this article
Title

Impact of postdilatation on performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared with everolimus-eluting stents: A propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter “real-world” registry

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Vol 23, No 4 (2016)

Pages

374-383

Published online

2016-08-01

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2016.0052

Pubmed

27515481

Bibliographic record

Cardiol J 2016;23(4):374-383.

Keywords

angina pectoris
myocardial infarction
coronary restenosis
thrombosis
cardiac death

Authors

Yoichi Imori
Fabrizio D'Ascenzo
Tommaso Gori
Thomas Münzel
Fabrizio Ugo
Gianluca Campo
Enrico Cerrato
L. Christian Napp
Mario Iannaccone
Jelena R. Ghadri
Elycia Kazemian
Ronald K. Binder
Milosz Jaguszewski
Adam Csordas
Piera Capasso
Simone Biscaglia
Fedrico Conrotto
Ferdinando Varbella
Roberto Garbo
Fiorenzo Gaita
Paul Erne
Thomas F. Lüscher
Claudio Moretti
Antonio H. Frangieh
Christian Templin

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl