Coronary interventions

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 5-year results of the BVS-EXAMINATION study

EuroIntervention 2020;15:1436-1443. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00773

Salvatore Brugaletta
Salvatore Brugaletta1, MD, PhD; Tommaso Gori2, MD, PhD; Petr Tousek3, MD, PhD; Josep Gomez-Lara4, MD, PhD; Eduardo Pinar5, MD, PhD; Luis Ortega-Paz1, MD; Eberhard Schulz2, MD; Viktor Kocka3, MD; Thomas Münzel2, MD; Angel Cequier4, MD, PhD; Andrea Buono3, MD; Patrick W. Serruys6, MD, PhD; Manel Sabaté1, MD, PhD
1. Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain; 2. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Angiologie und innere Intensivmedizin, Mainz, Germany; 3. Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic; 4. Institute of Cardiology, Hospital of Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain; 5. Cardiology Department, Interventional Cardiology Unit, Virgen de la Arrixaca Hospital, Murcia, Spain; 6. Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare five-year clinical outcomes between an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in STEMI patients.

Methods and results: This observational and retrospective study included 235 consecutive STEMI patients treated with BRS, compared with 235 STEMI patients treated with EES from the EXAMINATION 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 revascularisation at five-year follow-up. Device thrombosis, according to the ARC criteria, was also evaluated. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis was also performed at five years in event-free BRS patients. The cumulative incidence of five-year DOCE was higher in the BRS group as compared to the EES group (13.2% vs 7.6%, HR 1.87, 95% CI: 0.94-3.44, p=0.071), mainly driven by a higher rate of TLR (7.6% vs 1.7%, HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.44-2.30, p=0.004). The five-year definite BRS thrombosis rate was also higher as compared to EES (4.2% vs 1.2%, HR 3.49, 95% CI: 0.95-12.82, p=0.054). OCT analysis showed a high incidence of neoatherosclerosis in the BRS group.

Conclusions: The five-year event risk was higher with BRS versus EES in STEMI. This suggests that the probability of obtaining favourable results at very long-term follow-up is low. Whether better results will be obtained with new-generation BVS remains to be determined.

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?

No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from

bioresorbable scaffoldsdrug-eluting stentstemi
Coronary interventionsSTEMI
Read next article
Angiographic and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients treated with bioresorbable or metallic everolimus-eluting stents: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

Latest news