Long-term comparison of everolimus- vs. novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in real world patients.

Autor: Cakal B; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey., Cakal S; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey., Karaca O; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey., Omaygenc MO; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey., Yilmaz FK; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey., Gunes HM; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey., Ozcan OU; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey., Yıldırım A; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey., Boztosun B; Department of Cardiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology [Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej] 2020 Dec; Vol. 16 (4), pp. 391-398. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Dec 29.
DOI: 10.5114/aic.2020.101763
Abstrakt: Introduction: Elevated risk of adverse events in comparison to metallic stents resulted in withdrawal of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (eBVS), known as the most intensively studied BVS. There is a paucity of data comparing the two different BVS.
Aim: To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of the novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (nBVS) compared with eBVS.
Material and Methods: Consecutive patients treated with nBVS or eBVS in our center were screened. The primary outcome was the 3-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and target-lesion revascularization (TLR).
Results: After matching, 98 patients treated with 135 eBVS were compared with 98 patients treated with 136 nBVS. Baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, and lesion characteristics were comparable in both groups. The 3-year MACE rate was higher in the eBVS group (17.3% vs. 6.1%; p log-rank = 0.02). The occurrence of TLR (16.3% vs. 5.1%; p log-rank = 0.02) and TV-MI (8.2% vs. 0 %; p log-rank = 0.004) was also higher in the eBVS group except for cardiac deaths (1% vs. 2%; p log-rank = 0.98, eBVS vs. nBVS, respectively). Of note, definite device thrombosis rate was markedly increased in the eBVS group (5.1% vs. 0%; p log-rank = 0.03).
Conclusions: The present study revealed that the 3-year event risk was lower for nBVS compared to eBVS. More evidence is needed to evaluate long-term performance of novolimus-eluting biovascular platforms.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2020 Termedia Sp. z o. o.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: