Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: 1-Year follow-up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE-ISR Study).

OBJECTIVES: to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), everolimus-eluting stent (EES), and drug-eluting balloon (DEB) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) treatment. BACKGROUND: BVS has been proposed as alternative for ISR treatment. To date a direct comparison between BVS and DES or DEB for ISR treatment is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all ISR lesions treated with BVS, DEB, and EES from January 2012 to December 2014. A total of 548 lesions (498 patients) were included. By applying two propensity-score matching, 93 lesions treated with BVS were compared with 93 lesions treated with DEB, and 100 lesions treated with BVS were compared to 100 lesions treated with EES. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up the incidence of device-oriented cardiovascular events (DOCE) and its components did not significantly differ between BVS and DEB (DOCE: 10.9 vs. 11.8%, HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.33-2.52; P = 0.86; Cardiac death: 2.2 vs. 1.2%, HR, 1.74, 95% CI 0.16-18.80, P = 0.65; ID-TLR: 8.9 vs. 10.7%, HR, 0.81, 95% CI 0.27-2.48, P = 0.71; TV-MI: 3.3 vs. 1.2%, HR, 2.39, 95% CI 0.27-21.32, P = 0.43) and BVS vs. EES (DOCE: 10.1 vs. 5.2% HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 0.63-5.25; P = 0.27; Cardiac death: 3.0 vs. 1.1%; HR, 2.83, 95% CI 0.29-27.4, P = 0.37; ID-TLR: 7.2 vs. 4.2%, HR, 1.57, 95% CI 0.47-5.23, P = 0.46; TV-MI: 3.1 vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: At 1-year follow-up the use of BVS as ISR treatment is associated with a higher, even if not significant, DOCE rate compared with EES while a similar rate compared to DEB.

Dual antiplatelet therapy strategies and clinical outcomes in patients treated with polymer-free biolimus A9-coated stents.

AIMS: A large trial established the favourable clinical profile of a new polymer-free biolimus A9-eluting stent (PF-BES) with a one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimen in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). We aimed to evaluate the real-world patterns of indications, DAPT strategies and outcomes for the PF-BES following this evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: CHANCE is a multicentre registry including all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with at least one PF-BES. The reasons for the PF-BES PCI and planned antithrombotic regimens were collected. Primary outcomes were the 390-day Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient-oriented and device-oriented composite endpoints (POCE: death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target vessel revascularisation [TVR]; DOCE: cardiac death, target vessel MI or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation [ID-TLR]). Between January 2016 and July 2018, 858 patients (age 74±10 years, 64.6% male, 58.7% acute coronary syndrome presentation) underwent PF-BES PCI. The main reasons for the physicians' choice of PF-BES reflected a perceived HBR in 77.7% of patients. One-month DAPT was planned in 40.3% of patients. At 390-day follow-up (median 340 days, interquartile range: 187-390 days), the estimated incidence of POCE was 13.1% (any MI 3.7%, any TVR 3.4%) and of DOCE was 7.1% (TV-MI 3.6%, ID-TLR 1.4%), while the 390-day estimate of any bleeding event was 11.1% (BARC 3-5 bleeding 3.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In a large all-comers registry, PF-BES was used mostly in HBR patients, frequently followed by a very short DAPT regimen. The reported outcomes suggest a favourable safety and efficacy profile for the PF-BES in a real-world clinical setting. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03622203.