OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the outcomes of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) after 3 years, the approximate time of complete polymer bioresorption. BACKGROUND: BVS were found to be inferior to second-generation DES in early and mid-term outcomes with a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and device thrombosis (DT). Improper implantation techniques and incomplete bioresorption of the poly-l-lactide (PLLA) polymer were sighted as possible reasons. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search for all randomized control trials that compared absorb BVS to second-generation DES and reported outcomes of interest after 3 years of absorb BVS implantation. Assuming interstudy heterogeneity, a random-effects analysis was conducted with odds ratio as the effect size of choice to compare the event rates between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of four studies (n = 3,245, BVS = 2075, DES = 1,170) were included in the final analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that there was no difference between absorb BVS and second-generation DES with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.73-2.07, p = 0.44), TV-MI (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.42-2.53, p = 0.95), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 0.77-3.33, p = 0.20) and definite/probable DT (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.10-5.07, p = 0.74). Also, there was no difference in cardiac mortality (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.22-1.94, p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Between 3 and 4 years of follow-up, patients receiving absorb BVS did not have significantly different outcomes, in terms of TLF, TV-MI, TLR, DT, and cardiac mortality, compared to DES.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the outcomes of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) after 3 years, the approximate time of complete polymer bioresorption. BACKGROUND: BVS were found to be inferior to second-generation DES in early and mid-term outcomes with a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and device thrombosis (DT). Improper implantation techniques and incomplete bioresorption of the poly-l-lactide (PLLA) polymer were sighted as possible reasons. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search for all randomized control trials that compared absorb BVS to second-generation DES and reported outcomes of interest after 3 years of absorb BVS implantation. Assuming interstudy heterogeneity, a random-effects analysis was conducted with odds ratio as the effect size of choice to compare the event rates between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of four studies (n = 3,245, BVS = 2075, DES = 1,170) were included in the final analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that there was no difference between absorb BVS and second-generation DES with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.73-2.07, p = 0.44), TV-MI (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.42-2.53, p = 0.95), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 0.77-3.33, p = 0.20) and definite/probable DT (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.10-5.07, p = 0.74). Also, there was no difference in cardiac mortality (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.22-1.94, p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Between 3 and 4 years of follow-up, patients receiving absorb BVS did not have significantly different outcomes, in terms of TLF, TV-MI, TLR, DT, and cardiac mortality, compared to DES.
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