Angiographic and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients treated with bioresorbable or metallic everolimus-eluting stents. A pooled analysis of individual patient data from 2 randomized trials.

Cassese, Salvatore; Katagiri, Yuki; Byrne, Robert A; Brugaletta, Salvatore; Alfonso, Fernando; Räber, Lorenz; Maeng, Michael; Iñiguez, Andres; Kretov, Evgeny; Onuma, Yoshinobu; Joner, Michael; Sabaté, Manel; Laugwitz, Karl-Ludwig; Windecker, Stephan; Kastrati, Adnan; Serruys, Patrick W (2020). Angiographic and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients treated with bioresorbable or metallic everolimus-eluting stents. A pooled analysis of individual patient data from 2 randomized trials. EuroIntervention, 15(16), pp. 1451-1457. Europa Digital & Publishing 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01080

Text 118_30719976 Angiographic and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients.pdf - Accepted Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (975kB)

AIMS

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were conceived to ensure transient coronary artery support during antiproliferative drug delivery. However, the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold Absorb (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was found inferior to everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) in moderately complex coronary anatomies. We sought to investigate whether the Absorb represents a valuable option for the percutaneous treatment of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We pooled individual patient data of two randomized trials designed to investigate the performance of Absorb versus EES in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The primary outcome was lesion diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. The main secondary outcome was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, target vessel MI and target lesion revascularization at 1 year. A total of 388 patients with STEMI were allocated to Absorb (n=227) or EES (n=161). Angiographic follow-up at 1 year was available for 332 (85.6%) patients. Lesion diameter stenosis was comparable between Absorb and EES (22.8±9.8% versus 23.6±11.2%; mean difference, 95% Confidence intervals= -0.8% [-3.18, 1.48], P= 0.47). DOCE occurred in 21 patients at 1 year, with similar distribution between Absorb and EES groups (5.3% versus 5.6%; hazard ratio, 95% Confidence intervals= 0.95 [0.40, 2.26], P= 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis provides evidence for a comparable angiographic performance and suggests similar clinical performance of Absorb and EES in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization. The long-term durability of Absorb and the extent to which newer BRS platforms might have a potential role in STEMI deserve further investigation.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 12 Feb 2020
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item