Very Late Thrombosis: Bioresorbable Scaffolds vs. Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Drug-Eluting Stents

Very Late Thrombosis: Bioresorbable Scaffolds vs. Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Drug-Eluting StentsThis study sought to compare the 2-year outcomes between bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and everolimus-eluting metallic drug-eluting stents (EES), since the occurrence of very late thrombosis (thrombosis beyond 1 year after implantation) is an increasing concern in relation to new devices.

 

This meta-analysis was conducted based on 24 studies (BVS: n = 2567 and EES: n = 19,806) reporting the 2-year outcomes of both devices to compare the risk of thrombosis and target lesion failure in 7 comparative studies (3 randomized and 4 observational). Seventeen additional single-arm studies were used to estimate the incidence rates of these events.

 

In the 7 comparative studies, the risk for very late thrombosis between 1 and 2 years was numerically higher in BVS than in EES (odds ratio [OR]: 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 6.71).

 

The excess risk of thrombosis for BVS compared to EES at 2 years was significant (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.02 to 4.26) as opposed to target lesion failure, which turned out to be very similar for both devices.

 

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis, bioresorbable scaffolds were associated with higher risk for very late thrombosis and global thrombosis at 2 years when compared with everolimus-eluting metallic drug-eluting stents.

 

Editorial

A previous meta-analysis carried out by Dr. Salvatore Cassese and his team published in The Lancet in 2015 showed higher rates of thrombosis (0.5 vs. 1.3%) and luminal loss for the BVS group. This new study ratifies that which had already been published. BVS theoretical advantages were expected to emerge many years after placement. However, these devices have not shown any superiority over drug-eluting stents, so far.

 

Original title: Very Late Scaffold Thrombosis of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold. Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis.

Reference: Toshiaki Toyota et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2017;10:27–37.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Coronary Perforations and Use of Covered Stents: Safe and Effective Long-Term Strategy?

Coronary perforations remain one of the most serious complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in cases of Ellis ruptures type III. In these...

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Intravascular Imaging-Guided PCI vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated superior outcomes with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main...

AHA 2025 | OCEAN Study: Anticoagulation vs. Antiplatelet Therapy After Successful Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

After a successful atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, the need to maintain long-term anticoagulation (AC) remains uncertain, especially considering the very low residual embolic risk...

AHA 2025 | VESALIUS-CV: Evolocumab in High-Cardiovascular-Risk Patients Without Prior MI or Stroke

LDL cholesterol is a well-established factor for cardiovascular disease. Therapy with PCSK9 inhibitors, including evolocumab, has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Coronary Perforations and Use of Covered Stents: Safe and Effective Long-Term Strategy?

Coronary perforations remain one of the most serious complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in cases of Ellis ruptures type III. In these...

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....