Impact of Selection Preference on Longer-Term Outcomes between Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent for True Lumen Tracking-Recanalized Chronic Total Occlusion.

Abstract

Creation of sizable subintima during intervention for chronic total occlusions (CTO) could lead to the key selection preference of metallic stents rather than bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and then possibly deviate the outcome comparisons in real-world studies. By including recanalized CTO with true lumen tracking, we tested if any selection preference remained and compared the outcomes between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and BVS implantation.Among 211 consecutive CTO interventions with true lumen tracking from August 2014 to April 2018 when BVS was available, we compared the clinical and interventional features between 28 patients with BVS and 77 patients with EES implantation. With propensity score matching and a median follow-up of 50.5 (37.3-60.3) months, we further assessed 25 patients with BVS and 25 with EES for target vessel failure (TVF: cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization).Multivariate analyses showed that BVS was still favored in the presence of LAD CTO (odds ratio (OR) = 3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-11.7) and an average scaffold/stent size ≥ 3 mm (OR = 10.5, 95% CI = 3.0-37.3). EES was preferred for lesions with a J-CTO score ≥ 3 (OR = 19.3, 95% CI = 3.4-110.8) and multivessel intervention necessary at index procedure (OR = 11.3, 95% CI = 1.9-67.3). With matched comparisons, the TVF-free survival of EES was better than that of BVS for CTO recanalization (P = 0.049 by log-rank test) at long-term follow-up.Even with true lumen tracking techniques, selection bias remained substantial when determining either device for CTO implantation. The matched comparison of outcomes suggested the unfavorable longer-term impacts of the first generation of BVS on CTO lesions.