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

[img] 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) | Request a copy

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.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Cardiology

UniBE Contributor:

Räber, Lorenz and Windecker, Stephan

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

1774-024X

Publisher:

Europa Digital & Publishing

Language:

English

Submitter:

Nadia Biscozzo

Date Deposited:

12 Feb 2020 14:13

Last Modified:

24 Mar 2020 01:33

Publisher DOI:

10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01080

PubMed ID:

30719976

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.139183

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/139183

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback