Comparison of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold to the Xience durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in routine clinical practice: a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry.

INTRODUCTION: Most clinical trials related to bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) technology are limited to a highly selected patient population. AIM: To evaluate early and long-term clinical outcomes of the Absorb everolimus-eluting BVS compared to the everolimus-eluting metallic XIENCE V stent in routine clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective propensity score-matched comparative study, comprising 76 patients treated with a bare metal stents (BMS) and 501 with a XIENCE stent. Patients included in the study had stable and unstable angina and both types of myocardial infarction (STEMI and NSTEMI) as an indication for intervention and at least one significant de novo lesion in native coronary arteries. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 400 days in both groups. After propensity score matching for patient baseline characteristics, only higher rate of predilatation, predominantly treated left anterior descending artery (LAD) and lower number of used stents in the BVS group remained statistically significant. After adjustment there was no difference in type of treated lesions. The MACE rate did not differ between BVS and drug-eluting stents (DES) groups (7.2% vs. 11.15%, respectively; p = 0.17). The TVR was 2.9% in both groups. Except in the periprocedural period, there were no deaths or MI in the BVS group. There was no stent thrombosis in either studied group. CONCLUSIONS: In routine clinical practice throughout long-term follow-up, clinical outcomes of patients who successfully received the Absorb BVS did not differ from those of patients who received the Xience stent. Longer follow-up data are required to determine whether these findings will persist beyond one year.

Long-Term Outcomes After Percutaneous Lower Extremity Arterial Interventions With Atherectomy vs. Balloon Angioplasty　- Propensity Score-Matched Registry.

BACKGROUND: The impact of endovascular revascularization of the lower extremity arteries with atherectomy (AT) compared with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) is still unclear. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare long-term outcomes after percutaneous PTA and AT in patients requiring endovascular revascularization.Methods and Results:This was a single-center, retrospective registry of obstructive and symptomatic PAD patients who underwent endovascular revascularization. PTA was performed in 215 patients, and AT in 204 (Silver Hawk, EV3, n=125; CSI 360°, n=66; Pathway Medical Technologies, n=13). There were no significant between-group differences in baseline characteristics except for increased CAD, dialysis and CLI prevalence in the PTA group. Following propensity score analysis 131 well-matched pairs were included in analysis. Bail-out stenting was more frequent in the reference group (PTA, 6.1% vs. AT, 0%; P=0.004). At 6- and 12-month follow-up there were no differences in TLR between the groups (PTA, 8.3% vs. AT, 5.3%; P=0.47; and PTA, 16.7% vs. AT, 13.7%; P=0.73, respectively). The difference was in favor of AT at 24-month follow-up (PTA, 29.0% vs. AT, 16.7%; P=0.05). No difference was observed in amputation rate (PTA, 0.7% vs AT, 1.5%; P=0.62). On Kaplan-Meier analysis there were no significant differences between groups in time to TLR, amputation or death. CONCLUSIONS: AT was associated with lower risk of TLR, and this should be confirmed in randomized controlled trials.