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

COILSEAL: Use of Coils in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Useful for Complication Management?

The use of coils as vascular closing tool has been steadily expanding beyond its traditional role in neuroradiology into coronary territory, where it remains...

Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis in Small Vessels with Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons

Coronary artery disease (CAD) in smaller epicardial vessels occurs in 30% to 67% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and poses particular technical challenges....

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...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

COILSEAL: Use of Coils in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Useful for Complication Management?

The use of coils as vascular closing tool has been steadily expanding beyond its traditional role in neuroradiology into coronary territory, where it remains...

Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis in Small Vessels with Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons

Coronary artery disease (CAD) in smaller epicardial vessels occurs in 30% to 67% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and poses particular technical challenges....

Contemporary Challenges in Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Updated Approach to Device Embolization

Even though percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is generally safe, device embolization – with 0 to 1.5% global incidence – is still a...