1-Year Outcomes of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents : A Propensity-Matched Comparison of the GHOST-EU and XIENCE V USA Registries

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcomes of the ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) and the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.BackgroundRandomized studies of the ABSORB BRS have been performed in selected patient and lesion scenarios. The available registries of the ABSORB BRS reflect real-world practice more closely compared with randomized studies, but most of them are limited by the small sample size and the lack of comparative outcomes versus second-generation drug-eluting stents.MethodsA total of 1,189 consecutive patients treated with ABSORB BRS from the GHOST-EU (Gauging coronary Healing with bioresorbable Scaffolding plaTforms in EUrope) registry and 5,034 patients treated with XIENCE EES from the XIENCE V USA registry were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity-score matching techniques and reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates and absolute risk difference (D) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up.ResultsAfter propensity score matching was performed for the entire population (N = 6,223), there were 905 matched pairs of patients. In the matched cohort (N = 1,810), there was no significant difference between ABSORB BRS and XIENCE EES in the risk of device-oriented composite endpoint at 1 year (5.8% vs. 7.6%, D = −1.8 [95% CI: −4.1 to 0.5]; p = 0.12). Cardiac death was less likely to occur in the ABSORB BRS group (0.7% vs. 1.9%, D = −1.2 [95% CI: −2.2 to 0.2]; p = 0.03), and a trend toward a reduction in myocardial infarction was noted with ABSORB BRS compared with XIENCE EES (2.4% vs. 4.0%, D = −1.6 [95% CI: −3.2 to 0.0]; p = 0.07). Conversely, no differences in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.6% vs. 3.5%, D = 1.1 [95% CI: −0.7 to 2.9]; p = 0.22) and definite or probable device thrombosis (1.8% vs. 1.1%, D = 0.7 [95% CI: −0.4 to 1.8]; p = 0.23) were detected between ABSORB BRS and XIENCE EES.ConclusionsIn a contemporary large cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with ABSORB BRS, the combined rate of ischemic events at 1 year was low and nonsignificantly different compared with matched patients treated with XIENCE EES.