| Abstrakt: |
Background--Data regarding the long-term efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents are limited. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the long-term outcomes with both devices. Methods and Results--Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes beyond 1 year and comparing BVS with everolimuseluting stents were included. Summary estimates risk ratios (RRs) were constructed. The primary efficacy outcome was target lesion failure, defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and the primary safety outcome was definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis. Six trials with 5392 patients were included (mean follow-up, 25 months). BVS had a higher rate of target lesion failure (RR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.58) driven by the higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26-2.17) and target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-1.78). The risk of definite or probable stent/ scaffold thrombosis (RR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.89-5.49) and very late stent/scaffold thrombosis (>1 year; RR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.66-13.8) was higher with BVS. The risk of cardiac and all-cause mortality was similar in both groups. Conclusions--Compared with everolimus-eluting stents, BVS is associated with increased risk of target lesion failure driven by the increased rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization in these studies (mean follow-up, 25 months). The risk of definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis and very late stent/scaffold thrombosis seems to be higher with BVS. Further information from randomized trials is critical to evaluate clinical outcomes with BVS on complete resolution of the scaffold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
