Background Data regarding long-term clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scarce.
Methods We searched online databases until October 2016 for studies comparing BVS versus DES reporting outcomes at 2 years of follow-up. We performed a meta-analysis comparing BVS with DES across the spectrum of coronary artery disease (CAD). Random effects model OR was calculated for outcomes of interest including device-oriented composite events (DOCE; defined as composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR)), all-cause mortality, definite stent thrombosis, TV-MI and TLR.
Results A total of 2360 patients enrolled in five studies met criteria for inclusion in this analysis. At 2 years, BVS was associated with higher rates of DOCE (6.9% vs 4.5%, OR=1.53; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.23; p=0.02), absolute risk increase (ARI) 2.4%, relative risk increase (RRI) 53%, TV-MI (4% vs 1.8%, OR=1.94; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.67; p=0.04), ARI 2.2%, RRI 122% and definite stent thrombosis (2.1% vs 0.6%, OR=3.39; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.88; p=0.005), ARI 1.5%, RRI 250% compared with DES. No differences in all-cause mortality (OR=0.86; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.81; p=0.80) and TLR (OR=1.44; 95% CI 0.81 to 2.54; p=0.21) were observed between both groups.
Conclusions BVS may be associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes compared with DES. Randomised clinical trials are encouraged to expeditiously report long-term safety and efficacy outcomes and identify predictors of adverse events with BVS compared with DES.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors All authors have contributed substantially to the manuscript and meet criteria for authorship.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.