Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus‐eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in‐stent restenosis: 1‐Year follow‐up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE‐ISR Study). Issue 4 (22nd January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Moscarella, Elisabetta; Tanaka, Akihito; Ielasi, Alfonso; Cortese, Bernardo; Coscarelli, Sebastian; De Angelis, Maria Carmen; Piraino, Davide; Latib, Azeem; Grigis, Giulietta; Bianchi, Renatomaria; Buccheri, Dario; Calabrò, Paolo; Tespili, Maurizio; Silva Orrego, Pedro; Colombo, Antonio; Varricchio, Attilio
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 92:Issue 4(2018)
• Page Start: 668
• Page End: 677
• Publication Date: 2018-01-22
• Subjects: bioresorbable vascular scaffold -- drug eluting balloon -- drug eluting stent -- in stent restenosis -- percutaneous coronary intervention; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.27473
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: to compare the 1‐year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), everolimus‐eluting stent (EES), and drug‐eluting balloon (DEB) for in‐stent restenosis (ISR) treatment. Background: BVS has been proposed as alternative for ISR treatment. To date a direct comparison between BVS and DES or DEB for ISR treatment is lacking. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all ISR lesions treated with BVS, DEB, and EES from January 2012 to December 2014. A total of 548 lesions (498 patients) were included. By applying two propensity‐score matching, 93 lesions treated with BVS were compared with 93 lesions treated with DEB, and 100 lesions treated with BVS were compared to 100 lesions treated with EES. Results: At 1‐year follow‐up the incidence of device‐oriented cardiovascular events (DOCE) and its components did not significantly differ between BVS and DEB (DOCE: 10.9 vs. 11.8%, HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.33–2.52; P = 0.86; Cardiac death: 2.2 vs. 1.2%, HR, 1.74, 95% CI 0.16–18.80, P = 0.65; ID‐TLR: 8.9 vs. 10.7%, HR, 0.81, 95% CI 0.27–2.48, P = 0.71; TV‐MI: 3.3 vs. 1.2%, HR, 2.39, 95% CI 0.27–21.32, P = 0.43) and BVS vs. EES (DOCE: 10.1 vs. 5.2% HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 0.63–5.25; P = 0.27; Cardiac death: 3.0 vs. 1.1%; HR, 2.83, 95% CI 0.29–27.4, P = 0.37; ID‐TLR: 7.2 vs. 4.2%, HR, 1.57, 95% CI 0.47–5.23, P = 0.46; TV‐MI: 3.1 vs. 0%). Conclusion: At 1‐year follow‐up the use of BVS as ISR treatment is associated with a higher, even if not significant, DOCE rate compared with EES while a similar rate compared to DEB.