Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention using bioresorbable vascular scaffold and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass for left anterior descending artery disease: 3-year clinical outcomes

Abstract

Aim. Evaluates 3-year clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery for the treatment of left anterior descending (LAD) lesions.Methods. In this single-center study were included 130 patients with stable angina and significant (≥70%) LAD disease. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to PCI with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb) (n = 65) or MIDCAB (n = 65). The primary end-point was major adverse cerebrocardiovascular events (MACCE) and secondary was. Primary and secondary endpoints were, respectively, major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events (MACCE) and target vessel failure at 3-year.Results.The groups of patients were comparable for all baseline demographic, clinical and angiographic parameters. The primary composite endpoint of MACCE through 3 years occurred in 16.9% of BVS patients and 9.2% of MIDCAB patients (p = 0.19). But 3-year any revascularization rates were higher with BVS (13.8% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.027). TVF was favor of the MIDCAB group (12,3% vs. 3,1%, p = 0.04), mainly triggered by high subsequent need for revascularization of the targeted vessel in the BVS group (9.2% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.05).Conclusion. At 3-year follow-up, PCI by BVS and MIDCAB in in patients with isolated LAD lesions yielded similar long-term outcomes regarding the primary composite clinical endpoint. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of reinterventions, TVF and TVR than the MIDCAB through 3 years of follow-up.