Key result
The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold showed statistically similar rates of target lesion failure at 12 months compared to the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with STEMI (HR 2.61).
Why the study?
Continuous observation of BVS-treated patients remains necessary despite market withdrawal, and STEMI patients were largely excluded from prior clinical trials.
Does the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) improve target lesion failure compared to the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with STEMI?
Cohort (n=264)
No
Does the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) improve target lesion failure compared to the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with STEMI?
Hazard Ratio: 2.61 (95% CI 0.9–7.56)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.7% vs 8.5%
p-value: p=0.076
In real-world STEMI patients, the bioresorbable vascular scaffold showed statistically similar rates of target lesion failure at 24 months compared to everolimus-eluting metallic stents, though numerical increases in stent thrombosis were noted.
BVS yields comparable early outcomes to EES in STEMI but with numerically higher adverse events; leaves open long-term safety in this high-risk group.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the withdrawal of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) from clinical use, continuous observation of BVS-treated patients is necessary. In the vast majority of clinical trials, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were excluded from the analysis. AIM: To compare the early and long-term outcomes of the BVS with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with BVS or EES in our center were screened. For analysis, only patients with STEMI were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the target lesion failure at 12 and 24 months. The secondary endpoints encompass occurrence of the patient-oriented cardiovascular endpoint (PoCE), stent thrombosis (ST), device, and procedural success. RESULTS: = 0.095). The rates of PoCE, ST, device, and procedural success were also comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: STEMI patients treated with the BVS showed statistically similar rates of primary and secondary endpoints compared with the EES.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Desperak et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n=264). Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) vs. Everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) was evaluated on Target lesion failure at 12 months (HR 2.61, 95% CI 0.90-7.56, p=0.076). The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold showed statistically similar rates of target lesion failure at 12 months compared to the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with STEMI (HR 2.61).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: