Everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Research Articles

Clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds or everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction: two-year results of the randomised ISAR-Absorb MI trial.

Clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds or everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction: two-year results of the randomised ISAR-Absorb MI trial.

Long-term outcomes after treatment of in-stent restenosis using the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold

BackgroundEarly studies evaluating the performance of bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) Absorb in in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions indicated promising short-term to mid-term outcomes.AimsTo evaluate long-term outcomes (up to 5 years) of patients...

Optical coherence tomography tissue coverage and characterization at six months after implantation of bioresorbable scaffolds versus conventional everolimus eluting stents in the ISAR-Absorb MI trial

PurposeData regarding vessel healing by optical coherence tomography (OCT) after everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) or everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) implantation in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients is scarce. We compared OCT findings after BRS or EES implantation in patients with AMI enrolled in a randomized trial.MethodsIn ISAR-Absorb MI, AMI patients were randomized to BRS or EES implantation, with 6–8 month angiographic follow-up. This analysis includes patients who underwent OCT during surveillance angiography. Tissue characterization was done using grey-scale signal intensity analysis. The association between OCT findings and target lesion failure (TLF) at 2 years was investigated.ResultsOCT was analyzed in 103 patients (2237 frames, 19,827 struts) at a median of 216 days post-implantation. Of these, 70 were treated with BRS versus 32 with EES. Pre-(92.8 vs. 68.7%, p = 0.002) and post-dilation (51.4 vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001) were more common in BRS as compared to EES. Strut coverage was higher in BRS vs. EES (97.5% vs. 90.9%, p < 0.001). Mean neointimal thickness was comparable in both groups [85.5 (61.9, 124.1) vs. 69.5 (32.7, 127.5) µm, respectively, p = 0.20]. Mature neointimal regions were numerically more common in BRS (43.0% vs. 24.6%; p = 0.35); this difference was statistically significant in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients (40.9% vs. 21.1%, p = 0.03).At two-years, 8 (7.8%) patients experienced TLF. Mean neointimal area [0.61 (0.21, 1.33) vs. 0.41 (0.11, 0.75) mm2, p = 0.03] and mean neointimal coverage [106.1 (65.2, 214.8) vs. 80.5 (53.5, 122.1) µm, p < 0.01] were higher, with comparable tissue maturity, in lesions with versus without TLF.ConclusionsIn selected patients who underwent OCT surveillance 6–8 months after coronary intervention for AMI with differing implantation characteristics depending on the device type used, vessel healing was more advanced in BRS compared with EES, particularly in the STEMI subgroup.

Four-year outcomes of a single-center experience with coronary everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds.

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) have been introduced to overcome the limitations of drug-eluting stents and the ABSORB (Everolimus-Eluting BRS, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was the most extensively tested. Nevertheless, major RCTs reported higher rates of target lesion failures and BRS thrombosis at 3 years follow-up, bringing to the withdrawing of the device from the market. It has been suggested that a better lesions selection and an optimized implantation technique could mitigate the displayed adverse results. Consecutive patients undergoing BRS implantation were included in this observational, single center study. Clinical follow-up was conducted up to 4 years. Endpoint of interest was the target lesion failure (TLF), a composite outcome including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization. A total of 62 patients with a mean age of 55±8.5 years were analyzed of which 70.9% presented with an acute coronary syndrome and 59.6% with myocardial infarction. A total of 100 lesions were treated and 51.6% were complex (B2/C). Predilatation was performed in all the case, post-dilatation in 74.1%. All the target vessel reference diameter (RVD) were >2.5 mm (average RVD 3.2±0.24 mm). At 4 years, the rate for TLF was 6.9%. Subgroup's analysis did not show significative differences among groups although consistently higher event rates were found for RVD <2.5 mm (12.6% vs. 6.4%, P=0.5), BRS overlapping (11.8% vs. 5%, P=0.2) and ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel on top of cardioaspirin (9.1% vs. 3%, P=0.2). This small-sized real-world registry displays lower rates of clinical events during long-term follow-up in respect to previous studies. The avoidance of implantation in small vessels, inclusion of acute myocardial infarction and extensive performance of BRS post-dilatation could explain the observed better results. Long-term outcomes of the ongoing ABSORB IV Trial are needed to confirm this data.

Outcomes of the novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in real world clinical practice.

BACKGROUND Most of the current data regarding the use of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) come from everolimus-eluting stent platforms. Adverse events with the everolimus-eluting BRSs which are the most comprehensively characterized BRS, hampered the clinical use of other BRS. There is paucity of published data regarding long term use of novolimus-eluting BRS. METHODS This study sought to evaluate the performance of novolimus-eluting BRS device at midterm follow-up in real world clinical practice. One hundred and forty-four patients (mean age 57.5±9.7 years, 78.5% male) treated with 206 scaffolds between October 2015 and December 2017 were enrolled. A device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) comprising cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and rate of scaffold thrombosis were investigated. RESULTS During a mean follow-up of 33±9 months, DOCE occurred in 9 patients (6.3%) of which cardiac death occurred in 2 patients (1.4%), and clinically driven TLR in 7 patients (4.9%), TV-MI in one patient. Target vessel revascularization (TVR) was observed in nine patients. None of the patients experienced scaffold thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS The use of novolimus-eluting BRS in this real-world population achieved good clinical outcomes.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds and metallic stents in diabetic patients: a patient-level pooled analysis of the prospective ABSORB DM Benelux Study, TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS

BackgroundSeveral studies compared everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (EE-BRS) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES), but only few assessed these devices in patients with diabetes mellitus.AimTo evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of all-comer patients with diabetes mellitus up to 2 years after treatment with EE-BRS or EES.MethodsWe performed a post hoc pooled analysis of patient-level data in diabetic patients who were treated with EE-BRS or EES in 3 prospective clinical trials: The ABSORB DM Benelux Study (NTR5447), TWENTE (NTR1256/NCT01066650) and DUTCH PEERS (NTR2413/NCT01331707). Primary endpoint of the analysis was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or clinically driven target vessel revascularization, as well as definite or probable device thrombosis (ST).ResultsA total of 499 diabetic patients were assessed, of whom 150 received EE-BRS and 249 received EES. Total available follow-up was 222.6 patient years (PY) in the EE-BRS and 464.9 PY in the EES group. The adverse events rates were similar in both treatment groups for TLF (7.2 vs. 5.2 events per 100 PY, p = 0.39; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77–2.87), p = 0.24), MACE (9.1 vs. 8.3 per 100 PY, p = 0.83; adjusted HR = 1.23 (95% CI: 0.70–2.17), p = 0.47), and ST (0.9 vs. 0.6 per 100 PY, p > 0.99).ConclusionIn this patient-level pooled analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus from 3 clinical trials, EE-BRS showed clinical outcomes that were quite similar to EES.

TCT CONNECT-269 A First-in-Human Study of the Second-Generation, Thin-Strut, Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold: Final IVUS and OCT Results From the FAST Clinical Trial

TCT CONNECT-269 A First-in-Human Study of the Second-Generation, Thin-Strut, Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold: Final IVUS and OCT Results From the FAST Clinical Trial

Outcomes after complete dissolution of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds implanted during routine practice

Introduction and objectivesLong-term outcomes of unselected patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation are lacking, especially for the period after complete dissolution of the BVS. This study sought to evaluate 5-year outcomes in patients treated with BVS in routine practice. MethodsConsecutive patients who underwent implantation of everolimus-eluting BVS during routine clinical practice at 2 high-volume centres in Germany were studied. The patients were followed-up for up to 5 years. The primary endpoints of interest were the composite of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization, as well as definite scaffold thrombosis. ResultsA total of 419 patients (mean age 66.6 ± 10.9 years; 31.5% had diabetes) were included, of whom 38.9% presented with an acute coronary syndrome. Of the 527 lesions treated, 49.0% were classified as complex and 13.1% were bifurcation lesions. At 5 years, the composite clinical endpoint occurred in 33.1% of patients and definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 4.7%. Most definite scaffold thrombosis occurred within 2 years after BVS implantation. ConclusionsIn patients treated with BVS implantation in routine clinical practice the rates of adverse clinical events at 5 years were high, including a considerable incidence of scaffold thrombosis.

The 2010s in clinical drug-eluting stent and bioresorbable scaffold research: aDutch perspective.

Dutch researchers were among the first to perform clinical studies in bare metal coronary stents, the use of which was initially limited by a high incidence of in-stent restenosis. This problem was greatly solved by the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES). Nevertheless, enthusiasm about first-generation DES was subdued by discussions about a higher risk of very-late stent thrombosis and mortality, which stimulated the development, refinement, and rapid adoption of new DES with more biocompatible durable polymer coatings, biodegradable polymer coatings, or no coating at all. In terms of clinical DES research, the 2010s were characterised by numerous large-scale randomised trials in all-comers and patients with minimal exclusion criteria. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed and investigated. The Igaki-Tamai scaffold without drug elution was clinically tested in the Netherlands in 1999, followed by an everolimus-eluting BRS (Absorb) which showed favourable imaging and clinical results. Afterwards, multiple clinical trials comparing Absorb and its metallic counterpart were performed, revealing an increased rate of scaffold thrombosis during follow-up. Based on these studies, the commercialisation of the device was subsequently halted. Novel technologies are being developed to overcome shortcomings of first-generation BRS. In this narrative review, we look back on numerous devices and on the DES and BRS trials reported by Dutch researchers.

One-year efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in the setting of acute myocardial infarction.

Background and objectivesThis study sought to compare clinical outcomes between bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsFrom March 2016 to October 2017, 952 patients with AMI without cardiogenic shock undergoing successful PCI with BRS (n = 136) or DP-EES (n = 816) were enrolled from a multicenter, observational Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.ResultsIn the crude population, there was no significant difference in the 1-year rate of device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) and device thrombosis between the BRS and DP-EES groups (2.2% vs. 4.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13–1.41, p = 0.163; 0.7% vs. 0.5%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.16–13.4, p = 0.719, respectively). BRS implantation was opted in younger patients (53.7 vs. 62.6 years, p < 0.001) with low-risk profiles, and intravascular image-guided PCI was more preferred in the BRS group (60.3% vs. 27.2%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsAt 1-year follow-up, no differences in the rate of DOCE and device thrombosis were observed between patients with AMI treated with BRS and those treated with DP-EES. Our data suggest that imaging-guided BRS implantation in young patients with low risk profiles could be a reasonable strategy in the setting of AMI.

Outcomes of the novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in real world clinical practice.

Most of the current data regarding the use of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) come from everolimus-eluting stent platforms. Adverse events with the everolimus-eluting BRSs which are the most comprehensively characterized BRS, hampered the clinical use of other BRS. There is paucity of published data regarding long term use of novolimus-eluting BRS. This study sought to evaluate the performance of novolimus-eluting BRS device at midterm follow-up in real world clinical practice. One hundred and forty-four patients (mean age 57.5±9.7 years, 78.5% male) treated with 206 scaffolds between October 2015 and December 2017 were enrolled. A device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) comprising cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and rate of scaffold thrombosis were investigated. During a mean follow-up of 33±9 months, DOCE occurred in 9 patients (6.3%) of which cardiac death occurred in 2 patients (1.4%), and clinically driven TLR in 7 patients (4.9%), TV-MI in one patient. Target vessel revascularization (TVR) was observed in nine patients. None of the patients experienced scaffold thrombosis. The use of novolimus-eluting BRS in this real-world population achieved good clinical outcomes.

Recent Least Burdensome Approach for the Approval of Innovative Medical Devices in Japan -Regulatory Approval Review of an Everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold.

Although a domestic trial in Japan revealed that Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) has no inferiority to everolimus-eluting stent (EES) cohort in the primary endpoint of the target lesion failure at 12 months, the scaffold/stent thrombosis (ST) rates with the BVS at 24 months were higher than those with the EES (Absorb BVS 3.1% vs. EES 1.5%), the ST rate of 3.1% with Absorb BVS is not an acceptable level in Japan. A cause-of-ST analysis revealed that cases in which diagnostic imaging and ensuing post-dilatation had been performed appropriately had lower ST rates than those without such management (within 1 year: 1.37% vs. 7.69%, from 1 to 2 years: 0.00% vs. 8.33%). Therefore, a further evaluation was needed to confirm that the ST rate with the Absorb BVS would be reduced by a proper implementation procedure. Regulatory approval was given conditionally to initiate rigorous post-marketing data collection in order to ensure the proper use of this device in limited facilities. The One-year Use-Result Survey in Japan for the Absorb BVS revealed no instances of ST. This approach to reducing the premarket regulatory burden of clinical trials and enhancing the post-marketing commitments of medical device regulation is useful for expediting patient access to innovative medical devices.

Five-year follow-up of patients who underwent everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold implantation.

The aim of this study was to evaluate very long-term results after unrestricted everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) implantation. Previous randomized studies mainly included selected patients differing from those seen during daily routine and long-term data from all-comers registries are sparse. Consecutive patients undergoing BRS implantation were included in this observational, single center study. Clinical follow-up was conducted up to 5 years. Endpoint of interest was the composite of target lesion failure (TLF), including target-vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization and cardiac death. Furthermore, ARC-defined scaffold thrombosis (ScT) were assessed. A total of 176 patients with a median age of 64 (55 - 72) years were analyzed, of which 59.6% presented an acute coronary syndrome. A total of 183 mainly complex lesions (55.8%) were treated. At 5 years, the rate for TLF was 21.6%. Definite or probable ScT rate was 4.1%. The rate of ScT within the first year was 2.8% and afterwards 1.2%. Notably, no ScT was seen later than 2 years. Although this real-world registry displays high rates of clinical events during long-term follow-up, no ScT was seen after 2 years.

Long-term follow-up and predictors of target lesion failure after implantation of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in real-world practice

BackgroundBioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) have been shown to be inferior to drug-eluting stents in randomized trials. Nevertheless, patients treated during daily routine differ from those treated within randomized trials and thus need further long-term evaluation. The present investigation aims to address this lack. MethodsConsecutive patients with coronary artery disease treated with implantation of everolimus-eluting BRS at 5 centers in Germany were included. Clinical follow-up was assessed up to 3 years. Analysis of clinical outcomes was performed by pooling of the individual patient data sets of each center. The major clinical endpoints of interest was target lesion failure (TLF) a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization. Furthermore occurrence of definite scaffold thrombosis was evaluated. A multivariable Cox regression analysis was applied to identify independent predictors of TLF. ResultsA total of 1614 patients treated with BRS were analyzed (mean age 64.0 ± 10.9 years, 75.8% male, 28.3% diabetics). A total 1817 lesions were treated with BRS and 56.0% were considered to be complex. At 3 years, the rate of TLF was 17.1% and definite scaffold thrombosis was noted in 2.6%. Independent predictors of TLF were a higher age, diabetes, bifurcation, complex lesions and the use of small BRS. ConclusionsIn this large-scale analysis of patients undergoing BRS implantation in daily routine, event rates were high, but in line with randomized studies. Predictors of TLF were identified which may optimize patient and lesion selection for BRS.

Randomized Comparison Between Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Stent: Multimodality Imaging Through 3 Years

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the vascular responses and fates of the scaffold after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation using multimodality imaging. BackgroundSerial comprehensive image assessments after BVS implantation in the context of a randomized trial have not yet been reported. MethodsIn the ABSORB Japan trial, 400 patients were randomized to a BVS (n = 266) or a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (n = 134). Through 3 years, patients underwent serial angiography and intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography (OCT). ResultsLuminal dimension at 3 years was consistently smaller with the BVS than with the cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (mean angiographic minimal luminal diameter 2.04 ± 0.63 mm vs. 2.40 ± 0.56 mm, mean difference −0.37 mm [95% confidence interval: −0.50 to −0.24 mm]; p < 0.001), mainly because of smaller device area (6.13 ± 2.03 mm2 vs. 7.15 ± 2.16 mm2, mean difference −1.04 mm2 [95% confidence interval: −1.66 to −0.42 mm2]; p < 0.001), and larger neointimal area (2.10 ± 0.61 mm2 vs. 1.86 ± 0.64 mm2, mean difference 0.24 mm2 [95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.43 mm2]; p = 0.01) by OCT. BVS-treated vessels did not show previously reported favorable vessel responses, such as positive vessel remodeling, late luminal enlargement, and restoration of vasomotion, although the OCT-based healing score was on average zero (interquartile range: 0.00 to 0.00). At 3 years, intraluminal scaffold dismantling (ISD) was observed in 14% of BVS. On serial OCT, ISD was observed in 6 lesions at 2 years, where the struts had been fully apposed at post-procedure, while ISD was observed in 12 lesions at 3 years, where 8 lesions were free from ISD on 2-year OCT. In 5 cases of very late scaffold thrombosis, strut discontinuities were detected in all 4 cases with available OCT immediately before reintervention. ConclusionsIn this multimodality serial imaging study, luminal dimension at 3 years was smaller with the BVS than with the cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. ISD, suspected to be one of the mechanisms of very late BVS thrombosis, was observed in a substantial proportion of cases at 3 years, which developed between post-procedure and 2 years and even beyond 2 years. (AVJ-301 Clinical Trial: A Clinical Evaluation of AVJ-301 [Absorb™ BVS] in Japanese Population [ABSORB JAPAN]; NCT01844284)

Long-term comparison of everolimus- vs. novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in real world patients.

IntroductionElevated risk of adverse events in comparison to metallic stents resulted in withdrawal of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (eBVS), known as the most intensively studied BVS. There is a paucity of data comparing the two different BVS.AimTo evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of the novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (nBVS) compared with eBVS.Material and methodsConsecutive patients treated with nBVS or eBVS in our center were screened. The primary outcome was the 3-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and target-lesion revascularization (TLR).ResultsAfter matching, 98 patients treated with 135 eBVS were compared with 98 patients treated with 136 nBVS. Baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, and lesion characteristics were comparable in both groups. The 3-year MACE rate was higher in the eBVS group (17.3% vs. 6.1%; p log-rank = 0.02). The occurrence of TLR (16.3% vs. 5.1%; p log-rank = 0.02) and TV-MI (8.2% vs. 0 %; p log-rank = 0.004) was also higher in the eBVS group except for cardiac deaths (1% vs. 2%; p log-rank = 0.98, eBVS vs. nBVS, respectively). Of note, definite device thrombosis rate was markedly increased in the eBVS group (5.1% vs. 0%; p log-rank = 0.03).ConclusionsThe present study revealed that the 3-year event risk was lower for nBVS compared to eBVS. More evidence is needed to evaluate long-term performance of novolimus-eluting biovascular platforms.

Angiographic and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients treated with bioresorbable or metallic everolimus-eluting stents: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were conceived to ensure transient coronary artery support during antiproliferative drug delivery. However, the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold was found to be inferior to everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) in moderately complex coronary anatomies. We sought to investigate whether the Absorb represents a valuable option for the percutaneous treatment of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We pooled the individual patient data of two randomised trials specifically designed to investigate the performance of Absorb versus EES in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The primary outcome was lesion (in-segment) diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. The main secondary outcome was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, target vessel MI and target lesion revascularisation at one year. A total of 388 patients with STEMI were allocated to Absorb (n=227) or EES (n=161). Angiographic follow-up at one year was available for 332 (85.6%) patients. Lesion diameter stenosis was comparable between Absorb and EES (22.8±9.8% versus 23.6±11.2%; mean difference -0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.18-1.48, p=0.47). DOCE occurred in 21 patients at one year, with similar distribution between the Absorb and EES groups (5.3% versus 5.6%; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI: 0.40-2.26, p=0.91). This pooled analysis provides evidence for a comparable angiographic performance and suggests similar clinical performance of Absorb and EES in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous revascularisation. The long-term durability of Absorb and the extent to which newer BRS platforms might have a potential role in STEMI deserve further investigation. Both trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01942070 and NCT01986803).

TCT-181 5-Year Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Implantation During Daily Clinical Routine: Final Results From the ISAR-Absorb Registry

TCT-181 5-Year Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Implantation During Daily Clinical Routine: Final Results From the ISAR-Absorb Registry

TCT-11 Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: 2-Year Results of the Randomized ISAR-Absorb MI Trial

Present data revealed higher event rates in patients who underwent everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) implantation compared with patients treated with metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). Of these studies, only 1 randomized trial is available, which addresses BRS use in patients with

Everolimus- vs. novolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Limited data exist on bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of the present study was to evaluate novolimus-eluting BRS (DESolve) as interventional treatment for patients with ACS, and to compare its 12-month outcomes with the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (Absorb). In this retrospective study, patients with ACS (including unstable angina pectoris, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) treated with either the Absorb or the DESolve BRS were evaluated in a1:1 matched-pair analysis. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, were evaluated as amajor endpoint. The occurrence of scaffold thrombosis was also assessed. Atotal of 102 patients were eligible for this analysis. The rate of MACE at 12months was comparable between the Absorb and the DESolve group (8.3% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.738). The occurrence of target lesion revascularization (6.2% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.700) and scaffold thrombosis (4.1% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.580) was comparable as well. All instances of scaffold thrombosis occurred within 30days of the index procedure. In this study, similar 12-month event rates were observed for both BRS types after implantation for the treatment of ACS.