Transradial experience with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: A case-matched study with metallic drug-eluting stents.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whether polymeric bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) implantation with transradial approach is feasible and safe is unknown. We compared the feasibility and safety of the transradial approach for BVS delivery with metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: We identified 118 consecutive patients who underwent BVS implantation and we compared 30-days and 1-year results with 118 matched patients with DES. Patients were matched for age, sex, risk factors and clinical indication. RESULTS: Rates of transradial approach were 98% in the BVS group vs 95% in the DES group (P = 0.16) with 5Fr used in 38% and 32% (P = 0.34), respectively. The number of stents was similar in both groups, 2.6 ±â€¯1.5 vs 2.4 ±â€¯1.3 (P = 0.23). Although maximal pressure for stent deployment was identical in both groups (16 ±â€¯3 atm), more lesions were pre-dilated (83% vs 52%, P < 0.001) and post-dilated (71% vs 33%, P < 0.001) in the BVS group. Contrast volume (217 ±â€¯97 vs 175 ±â€¯108 ml, P < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (16 [10-23] vs 13 [8-21] min, P = 0.04) and procedure duration (65 ±â€¯31 vs 56 ±â€¯47 min, P = 0.045) were significantly higher in the BVS group. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization remained similar in both groups, 1.7% vs 0.8% (P = 0.56) at 30 days and 10% vs 8.5% (P = 0.66) at 1 year. At 1 year, stent thrombosis occurred in 2 (1.7%) patients in the BVS group and 1 (0.8%) patient in the DES group (P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: The use of transradial approach for BVS compared to DES implantation was feasible and safe in all-comers, although BVS implantation included more technical challenges. Outcomes up to 1-year remained comparable in both groups.