Angiographic and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients treated with bioresorbable or metallic everolimus-eluting stents: A pooled analysis of individual patient data

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  • Salvatore Cassese, Deutsches Herzzentrum Muenchen und Deutsches Zentrum fuer Herz-Kreislaufforschung e.V.
  • ,
  • Yuki Katagiri, University of Amsterdam
  • ,
  • Robert A. Byrne, Deutsches Herzzentrum Muenchen und Deutsches Zentrum fuer Herz-Kreislaufforschung e.V., University Heart Center Lübeck and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK)
  • ,
  • Salvatore Brugaletta, Universitat Autònoma Barcelona
  • ,
  • Fernando Alfonso, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa
  • ,
  • Lorenz Räber, University of Bern
  • ,
  • Michael Maeng
  • Andres Iniguez, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario
  • ,
  • Evgeny Kretov, Russian Ministry of Health
  • ,
  • Yoshinobu Onuma, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • ,
  • Michael Joner, Deutsches Herzzentrum Muenchen und Deutsches Zentrum fuer Herz-Kreislaufforschung e.V., University Heart Center Lübeck and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK)
  • ,
  • Manel Sabaté, Universitat Autònoma Barcelona
  • ,
  • Karl Ludwig Laugwitz, University Heart Center Lübeck and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Technical University of Munich
  • ,
  • Stephan Windecker, University of Bern
  • ,
  • Adnan Kastrati, Deutsches Herzzentrum Muenchen und Deutsches Zentrum fuer Herz-Kreislaufforschung e.V., University Heart Center Lübeck and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK)
  • ,
  • Patrick W. Serruys, Imperial College London

Aims: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were conceived to ensure transient coronary artery support during antiproliferative drug delivery. However, the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold was found to be 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 the individual patient data of two randomised trials specifically designed to investigate the performance of Absorb versus EES in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The primary outcome was lesion (in-segment) 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 revascularisation at one year. A total of 388 patients with STEMI were allocated to Absorb (n=227) or EES (n=161). Angiographic follow-up at one 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 -0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.18-1.48, p=0.47). DOCE occurred in 21 patients at one year, with similar distribution between the Absorb and EES groups (5.3% versus 5.6%; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI: 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 revascularisation. The long-term durability of Absorb and the extent to which newer BRS platforms might have a potential role in STEMI deserve further investigation.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftEuroIntervention
Vol/bind15
Nummer16
Sider (fra-til)1451-1457
Antal sider7
ISSN1774-024X
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2020

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 185785884