Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background:

Theoretically, the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) could eliminate stent thrombosis and improve outcomes in patients having percutaneous coronary intervention.

Purpose:

To estimate the incidence of stent thrombosis after BVS implantation and to compare the efficacy and safety of BVSs versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EESs) in adults having percutaneous coronary intervention.

Data Sources:

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, and relevant Web sites from inception through 20 January 2016.

Study Selection:

6 randomized, controlled trials and 38 observational studies, each involving at least 40 patients with BVS implantation.

Data Extraction:

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and evaluated study risk of bias.

Data Synthesis:

The pooled incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis after BVS implantation was 1.5 events per 100 patient-years (PYs) (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.0 events per 100 PYs) (126 events during 8508 PYs). Six randomized trials that directly compared BVSs with EESs showed a non–statistically significant increased risk for stent thrombosis (odds ratio [OR], 2.05 [CI, 0.95 to 4.43]; P = 0.067) and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.38 [CI, 0.98 to 1.95]; P = 0.064) with BVSs. The 6 observational studies that compared BVSs with EESs showed increased risk for stent thrombosis (OR, 2.32 [CI, 1.06 to 5.07]; P = 0.035) and myocardial infarction (OR, 2.09 [CI, 1.23 to 3.55]; P = 0.007) with BVSs. The relative rates of all-cause and cardiac death, revascularization, and target lesion failure were similar for BVSs and EESs.

Limitation:

Scarce comparative data, no published data from large trials with long-term follow-up, and limited quality and incomplete reporting of observational studies.

Conclusion:

Compared with EESs, BVSs do not eliminate and might increase risks for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction in adults having percutaneous coronary intervention. Results of large trials with long-term follow-up are critically needed to establish the safety or at least the noninferiority of BVSs compared with EESs.

Primary Funding Source:

None.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles