novolimus and 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 a 1:1 matched-pair analysis. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, were evaluated as a major endpoint. The occurrence of scaffold thrombosis was also assessed.. A total of 102 patients were eligible for this analysis. The rate of MACE at 12 months 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 30 days 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.

Topics: Absorbable Implants; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Cardiovascular Agents; Coronary Artery Disease; Everolimus; Humans; Macrolides; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Prosthesis Design; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome

The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcome of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (eBRS) and Novolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (nBRS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-life clinical practice scenario.. eBRS and nBRS are available and have been proved safe for coronary artery stenting in well-selected patients.. Consecutive patients who underwent bioresorbable scaffold implantation were evaluated retrospectively via 2:1 propensity matching. Target lesion failure comprising cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was examined after 12 months, along with its individual components as well as scaffold thrombosis.. A total 506 patients were available for matching. Of these, 212 eBRS patients (mean age = 62.9 years) and 106 nBRS patients (mean age = 63.1 years) were analyzed after matching. Baseline characteristics and clinical presentation were comparable in both groups. Acute coronary syndromes were present in 53.3% of the eBRS group and in 48.1% of the nBRS group (p = 0.383). Lesion characteristics were also similar. Pre-dilation (99.5% vs. 98.1%; p = 0.218) and post-dilation (84.4% vs. 86.8%; p = 0.576) were performed in the same proportion of matched eBRS and nBRS patients, respectively. The 1-year rates of target lesion failure (4.7% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.851), target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.768), cardiac death (1.5% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.752), and definite scaffold thrombosis (2.0% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.529) did not differ significantly between the eBRS and nBRS groups.. The present study reveals comparable clinical results for the 2 types of bioresorbable scaffolds when used during routine practice, but further evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed.

Topics: Absorbable Implants; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Aged; Cardiovascular Agents; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Thrombosis; Everolimus; Female; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Macrolides; Male; Matched-Pair Analysis; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Prosthesis Design; Registries; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome