Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Issue 10018 (6th February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cassese, Salvatore; Byrne, Robert A; Ndrepepa, Gjin; Kufner, Sebastian; Wiebe, Jens; Repp, Janika; Schunkert, Heribert; Fusaro, Massimiliano; Kimura, Takeshi; Kastrati, Adnan
• Is Part Of: Lancet. Volume 387:Issue 10018(2016)
• Page Start: 537
• Page End: 544
• Publication Date: 2016-02-06
• Subjects: Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine; Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00979-4
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0140-6736

Abstract

Summary: Background: Bioresorbable coronary stents might improve outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions. The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold is the most studied of these stent platforms; however, its performance versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents remains poorly defined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with ischaemic heart disease treated with percutaneous revascularisation. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), scientific sessions abstracts, and relevant websites for randomised trials investigating everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents published or posted between Nov 30, 2006, and Oct 12, 2015. The primary efficacy outcome was target lesion revascularisation and the primary safety outcome was definite or probable stent (scaffold) thrombosis. Secondary outcomes were target lesion failure (the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation), myocardial infarction, death, and in-device late lumen loss. We derived odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs, and calculated the risk estimates for the main outcomes according to a random-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015026374. Findings: We included six trials, comprising data for 3738 patients randomised to receive percutaneous coronary intervention with either an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (n=2337) or an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (n=1401). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 9–12). Patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had a similar risk of target lesion revascularisation (OR 0·97 [95% CI 0·66–1·43]; p=0·87), target lesion failure (1·20 [0·90–1·60]; p=0·21), myocardial infarction (1·36 [0·98–1·89]; p=0·06), and death (0·95 [0·45–2·00]; p=0·89) as those treated with metallic stents. Patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had a higher risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis than those treated with a metallic stent (OR 1·99 [95% CI 1·00–3·98]; p=0·05), with the highest risk between 1 and 30 days after implantation (3·11 [1·24–7·82]; p=0·02). Lesions treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had greater in-device late lumen loss than those treated with a metallic stent (weighted mean difference 0·08 [95% CI 0·05–0·12]; p<0·0001). Interpretation: Compared with everolimus-eluting metallic stents, everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had similar rates of repeat revascularisation at 1 year of follow-up, despite inferior mid-term angiographic performance. However, patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had an increased risk of subacute stent thrombosis. Studies with extended follow-up in a larger number of patients are needed to fully assess the long-term advantages of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. Funding: None.