Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results of a propensity score matching comparison: the BVS-EXAMINATION Study (bioresorbable vascular scaffold-a clinical

The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. The Absorb BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) is a polymeric scaffold approved for treatment of stable coronary lesions. Limited and not randomized data are available on its use in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. This study included 290 consecutive STEMI patients treated by BVS, compared with either 290 STEMI patients treated with EES or 290 STEMI patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) from the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial, by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, at 1-year follow-up. Device thrombosis, according to the Academic Research Consortium criteria, was also evaluated. The cumulative incidence of DOCE did not differ between the BVS and EES or BMS groups either at 30 days (3.1% vs. 2.4%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48 to 3.52], p = 0.593; vs. 2.8%, HR: 1.15 [95% CI: 0.44 to 2.30], p = 0.776, respectively) or at 1 year (4.1% vs. 4.1%, HR: 0.99 [95% CI: 0.23 to 4.32], p = 0.994; vs. 5.9%, HR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.13 to 1.88], p = 0.306, respectively). Definite/probable BVS thrombosis rate was numerically higher either at 30 days (2.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.059; vs. 1.0%, p = 0.324, respectively) or at 1 year (2.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.948; vs. 1.7%, p = 0.825, respectively), as compared with EES or BMS. At 1-year follow-up, STEMI patients treated with BVS showed similar rates of DOCE compared with STEMI patients treated with EES or BMS, although rate of scaffolds thrombosis, mostly clustered in the early phase, was not negligible. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.

Brugaletta S ，Gori T ，Low AF ，Tousek P ，Pinar E ，Gomez-Lara J ，Scalone G ，Schulz E ，Chan MY ，Kocka V ，Hurtado J ，Gomez-Hospital JA ，Münzel T ，Lee CH ，Cequier A ，Valdés M ，Widimsky P ，Serruys PW ，Sabaté M ... -  《-》

Comparison of newer-generation drug-eluting with bare-metal stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFO

This study sought to study the efficacy and safety of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an appropriately powered population of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Among patients with STEMI, early generation DES improved efficacy but not safety compared with BMS. Newer-generation DES, everolimus-eluting stents, and biolimus A9-eluting stents, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early generation DES. Individual patient data for 2,665 STEMI patients enrolled in 2 large-scale randomized clinical trials comparing newer-generation DES with BMS were pooled: 1,326 patients received a newer-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent or biolimus A9-eluting stent), whereas the remaining 1,329 patients received a BMS. Random-effects models were used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization and the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. Newer-generation DES substantially reduce the risk of the device-oriented composite endpoint compared with BMS at 1 year (relative risk [RR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.79; p = 0.0004). Similarly, the risk of the patient-oriented composite endpoint was lower with newer-generation DES than BMS (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.96; p = 0.02). Differences in favor of newer-generation DES were driven by both a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.0001) and a lower risk of target-vessel infarction (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Newer-generation DES also reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75; p = 0.006) compared with BMS. Among patients with STEMI, newer-generation DES improve safety and efficacy compared with BMS throughout 1 year. It remains to be determined whether the differences in favor of newer-generation DES are sustained during long-term follow-up.

Sabaté M ，Räber L ，Heg D ，Brugaletta S ，Kelbaek H ，Cequier A ，Ostojic M ，Iñiguez A ，Tüller D ，Serra A ，Baumbach A ，von Birgelen C ，Hernandez-Antolin R ，Roffi M ，Mainar V ，Valgimigli M ，Serruys PW ，Jüni P ，Windecker S ... -  《-》

1-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: a pooled analysis of the ABSORB and the SPIRIT trials.

Muramatsu T ，Onuma Y ，van Geuns RJ ，Chevalier B ，Patel TM ，Seth A ，Diletti R ，García-García HM ，Dorange CC ，Veldhof S ，Cheong WF ，Ozaki Y ，Whitbourn R ，Bartorelli A ，Stone GW ，Abizaid A ，Serruys PW ，ABSORB Cohort B Investigators ，ABSORB EXTEND Investigators ，SPIRIT FIRST Investigators ，SPIRIT II Investigators ，SPIRIT III Investigators ，SPIRIT IV Investigators ... -  《-》

The EXAMINATION trial (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction): 2-year results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

This study sought to assess the 2-year outcomes of the population included in the EXAMINATION (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial beyond the 1-year prescription period of dual antiplatelet therapy. The EXAMINATION trial compared the performance of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial in patients with STEMI. The primary endpoint, which was the combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularization, and the endpoints target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed at 2 years. Between December 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, 1,498 patients were randomized to receive EES (n = 751) or BMS (n = 747). Compliance with dual antiplatelet regimen was reduced at 2 years to a similar degree (17.3% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.91). At 2 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 108 (14.4%) patients of the EES group and in 129 (17.3%) patients of the BMS group (p = 0.11). Rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES group than in the BMS group (2.9% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.009). Rates of definite and definite or probable stent thrombosis were also significantly reduced in the EES group (0.8% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.03, and 1.3% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.04, respectively). The 2-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial confirms the safety and efficacy of the EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI. Specifically, both rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES without any signs of late attrition for either of these endpoints. (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: EXAMINATION Study; NCT00828087).

Sabaté M ，Brugaletta S ，Cequier A ，Iñiguez A ，Serra A ，Hernádez-Antolín R ，Mainar V ，Valgimigli M ，Tespili M ，den Heijer P ，Bethencourt A ，Vázquez N ，Backx B ，Serruys PW ... -  《-》

1-Year Outcomes of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents: A Propensity-Matched Comparison of the GHOST-EU and XIENCE V USA Registries.

The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcomes of the ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) and the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Randomized studies of the ABSORB BRS have been performed in selected patient and lesion scenarios. The available registries of the ABSORB BRS reflect real-world practice more closely compared with randomized studies, but most of them are limited by the small sample size and the lack of comparative outcomes versus second-generation drug-eluting stents. A total of 1,189 consecutive patients treated with ABSORB BRS from the GHOST-EU (Gauging coronary Healing with bioresorbable Scaffolding plaTforms in EUrope) registry and 5,034 patients treated with XIENCE EES from the XIENCE V USA registry were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity-score matching techniques and reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates and absolute risk difference (D) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. After propensity score matching was performed for the entire population (N = 6,223), there were 905 matched pairs of patients. In the matched cohort (N = 1,810), there was no significant difference between ABSORB BRS and XIENCE EES in the risk of device-oriented composite endpoint at 1 year (5.8% vs. 7.6%, D = -1.8 [95% CI: -4.1 to 0.5]; p = 0.12). Cardiac death was less likely to occur in the ABSORB BRS group (0.7% vs. 1.9%, D = -1.2 [95% CI: -2.2 to 0.2]; p = 0.03), and a trend toward a reduction in myocardial infarction was noted with ABSORB BRS compared with XIENCE EES (2.4% vs. 4.0%, D = -1.6 [95% CI: -3.2 to 0.0]; p = 0.07). Conversely, no differences in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.6% vs. 3.5%, D = 1.1 [95% CI: -0.7 to 2.9]; p = 0.22) and definite or probable device thrombosis (1.8% vs. 1.1%, D = 0.7 [95% CI: -0.4 to 1.8]; p = 0.23) were detected between ABSORB BRS and XIENCE EES. In a contemporary large cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with ABSORB BRS, the combined rate of ischemic events at 1 year was low and nonsignificantly different compared with matched patients treated with XIENCE EES.

Tamburino C ，Capranzano P ，Gori T ，Latib A ，Lesiak M ，Nef H ，Caramanno G ，Naber C ，Mehilli J ，Di Mario C ，Sabaté M ，Münzel T ，Colombo A ，Araszkiewicz A ，Wiebe J ，Geraci S ，Jensen C ，Mattesini A ，Brugaletta S ，Capodanno D ... -  《-》