Carlos M Campos1, Adriano Caixeta1, Marcelo Franken1, Antonio L Bartorelli2, Robert J Whitbourn3, Chiung-Jen Wu4, Hsien Li Paul Kao5, Mohd Ali Rosli6, Didier Carrie7, Bernard De Bruyne8, Gregg W Stone9,10, Patrick W Serruys11, Alexandre Abizaid12. 1. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Cardiology, St Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Cardiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Niao-Sung Hsiang, Taiwan. 5. Department of Cardiology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 6. Department of Cardiology, Institute Jantung Negara, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 7. Department of Cardiology, Hôpital de Rangueil CHU, Toulouse, France. 8. Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Center Aalst, Belgium. 9. Department of Interventional Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York. 10. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York. 11. International Centre for Circulatory Health, NHLI, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. 12. Department of Interventional Cardiology, Instituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to compare the occurrence of clinical events in diabetics treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) versus everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES; XIENCE V; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) BACKGROUND: There are limited data dedicated to clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) at 2-year horizon. METHODS: The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups. CONCLUSION: In this largest ever patient-level pooled comparison on the treatment of diabetic patients with BRS out to two years, individuals with diabetes treated with the Absorb BVS had a similar rate of MACE as compared with diabetics treated with the Xience EES.
OBJECTIVES: to compare the occurrence of clinical events in diabetics treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) versus everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES; XIENCE V; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) BACKGROUND: There are limited data dedicated to clinical outcomes of diabeticpatients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) at 2-year horizon. METHODS: The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabeticpatients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabeticpatients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups. CONCLUSION: In this largest ever patient-level pooled comparison on the treatment of diabeticpatients with BRS out to two years, individuals with diabetes treated with the Absorb BVS had a similar rate of MACE as compared with diabetics treated with the Xience EES.
Authors: T M Hommels; R S Hermanides; S Rasoul; B Berta; A J J IJsselmuiden; G A J Jessurun; E Benit; B Pereira; G De Luca; E Kedhi Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: T M Hommels; R S Hermanides; B Berta; E Fabris; G De Luca; E H Ploumen; C von Birgelen; E Kedhi Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 9.951