Comparison of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the withdrawal of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) from clinical use, continuous observation of BVS-treated patients is necessary. In the vast majority of clinical trials, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were excluded from the analysis.

AIM

To compare the early and long-term outcomes of the BVS with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with STEMI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated with BVS or EES in our center were screened. For analysis, only patients with STEMI were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the target lesion failure at 12 and 24 months. The secondary endpoints encompass occurrence of the patient-oriented cardiovascular endpoint (PoCE), stent thrombosis (ST), device, and procedural success.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2016, 2,137 patients were hospitalized for STEMI. Of these, 123 patients received the BVS (163 scaffolds; 151 lesions), whereas in 141 patients the EES (203 stents; 176 lesions) was implanted. The median follow-up was 931 ±514 days. The primary endpoint at 12 months occurred in 9.7% in the BVS group and in 8.5% in the EES group (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-7.56; = 0.076). At 24 months the incidence of the primary endpoint was 15.2% in the BVS group and 14.9% in the EES group (HR = 2.46; 95% CI: 0.85-7.07; = 0.095). The rates of PoCE, ST, device, and procedural success were also comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

STEMI patients treated with the BVS showed statistically similar rates of primary and secondary endpoints compared with the EES.