Temporal Trends in Adverse Events After Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent ImplantationClinical Perspective
A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Background: Bioresorbable coronary stents have been introduced into clinical practice to improve the outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is the most studied of these stent platforms; however, recent trials comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) raised concerns about BVS safety. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of BVS versus EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, scientific sessions abstracts, and relevant Web sites for randomized trials with a follow-up of ≥2 years investigating percutaneous coronary interventions with BVS versus EES. The primary outcomes of our analysis were definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion failure (TLF; device-oriented composite end point of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]). Secondary outcomes were target vessel myocardial infarction, TLR, and cardiac death. We calculated the risk estimates for main outcomes according to a fixed-effect model.
Results: We included 7 trials comprising data for 5583 patients randomized to receive either a BVS (n=3261) or an EES (n=2322). Median follow-up was 24 months (range, 24–36 months). Patients treated with BVS had a higher risk of definite/probable ST compared with patients treated with EES (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.97–5.62; P<0.00001). In particular, patients with BVS had a higher risk of subacute, late, and very late ST, whereas the risk of acute ST was similar. Patients treated with BVS compared with EES had a higher risk at 2 years of TLF (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–1.90; P=0.003), driven mainly by an increased risk of target vessel myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.31–2.28; P=0.0001; I2=0%) and of TLR (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.00–1.62; P=0.05). Of importance, the risk of TLF and TLR for patients with BVS was higher between 1 and 2 years, whereas there was no difference in the first year. Risk of cardiac death was similar between the 2 groups.
Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of randomized trials with a follow-up of ≥2 years demonstrated a higher risk of ST and of TLF in patients treated with BVS compared with EES. Of note, BVS had a higher risk of subacute, late, and very late ST, whereas the risk of TLF and TLR was higher between 1 and 2 years.
- Received March 20, 2017.
- Accepted April 17, 2017.
- © 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.