DATE : 21-06-10 15:46
|
One-year Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds in the Setting of Acute Myocardial Infarction.
|
|
|
WRITER :
stent
 HIT : 1,228
|
Kim Y, Bae S, Jeong MH, Ahn Y, Kim CJ, Cho MC, Baumbach A, Gogas BD, King SB 3rd
One-year Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds in the Setting of Acute Myocardial Infarction.
PLOS ONE
Background and objectives This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods From March 2016 to October 2017, 952 patients with AMI without cardiogenic shock undergoing successful PCI with BRS (n = 136) or DP-EES (n = 816) were enrolled from a multicenter, observational Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. Results In the crude population, there was no significant difference in the 1-year rate of device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) and device thrombosis between the BRS and DP-EES groups (2.2% vs. 4.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.41, p = 0.163; 0.7% vs. 0.5%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.16-13.4, p = 0.719, respectively). BRS implantation was opted in younger patients (53.7 vs. 62.6 years, p < 0.001) with low-risk profiles, and intravascular image-guided PCI was more preferred in the BRS group (60.3% vs. 27.2%, p < 0.001). Conclusions At 1-year follow-up, no differences in the rate of DOCE and device thrombosis were observed between patients with AMI treated with BRS and those treated with DP-EES. Our data suggest that imaging-guided BRS implantation in young patients with low risk profiles could be a reasonable strategy in the setting of AMI.
|
|
