Key result
BVS implantation linked to ~573% higher coronary perforation risk vs DES or BMS.
Why the study?
Does bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation improve periprocedural outcomes compared to drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in patients with coronary artery disease?
Observational (n=141,324)
Yes
Does bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation improve periprocedural outcomes compared to drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in patients with coronary artery disease?
Odds Ratio: 6.728 (95% CI 2.394–18.906)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.31% vs 0.12%
p-value: p=0.001
In a large national registry, BVS implantation was associated with a significantly higher risk of periprocedural coronary artery perforation compared to DES/BMS, despite being used more frequently in lower-risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May signal higher BVS perforation risk; leaves open causal role versus selection bias in registry data.
Rzeszutko et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=141,324). Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) vs. Drug-eluting stent (DES) or bare-metal stent (BMS) was evaluated on Coronary artery perforation (OR 6.728, 95% CI 2.394-18.906, p=0.001). Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation was identified as an independent predictor of coronary artery perforation compared to drug-eluting or bare-metal stents (OR 6.728).
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: