Abstract

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been proposed for overcoming the long-term limitations of permanent metallic stents, while theoretically warranting similar advantages in plaque stabilization and anti-restenotic drug delivery in the early postrevascularization phase. However, increased rates of malapposition, restenosis, or thrombosis have emerged from initial trials with BVS, that were nevertheless underpowered for the evaluation of the real outcome benefits of these coronary devices. The recent completion of newer randomized clinical trials paves the way to the present meta-analysis, aiming at the comparison of Poly (l-Lactic acid) BVS (PLLA-BVS) versus metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of coronary stenoses. Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing drug-eluting BVS versus metallic DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality, secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis and the composite of device-oriented target lesion failure (TLF). We included 11 randomized trials, for a total population of 10,707 patients, 54.5% treated with BVS. The major indication for PCI was stable CAD, whereas acute coronary syndrome represented 30% of the patients. At a mean follow-up of 2.64 years (1-5 years), mortality occurred in 2.71% of the patients, with no difference according to the type of implanted stent (OR[95%CI] = 0.94 [0.74, 1.20], p = .62). No interaction was observed according to patients' risk profile or the rate of diabetes and ACS. However, a significant increase in myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, TLR and TLF was observed with BVS as compared to DES. The present meta-analysis provides the most updated data on the use of PLLA-BVS for the treatment of CAD. We documented a poorer performance of these new coronary devices, as compared to new generation metallic DES, being associated with an increased rate of recurrent cardiovascular events. However, such ischemic complications did not impact on mortality, with a comparable survival independently from the type of stent.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.