Comparison of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Introduction: Despite the withdrawal of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) from clinical use, continuous observation of BVS-treated patients is necessary. In the vast majority of clinical trials, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were excluded from the analysis. Aim: To compare the early and long-term outcomes of the BVS with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. Material and methods: Consecutive patients treated with BVS or EES in our center were screened. For analysis, only patients with STEMI were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the target lesion failure at 12 and 24 months. The secondary endpoints encompass occurrence of the patient-oriented cardiovascular endpoint (PoCE), stent thrombosis (ST), device, and procedural success. Results: Between 2012 and 2016, 2,137 patients were hospitalized for STEMI. Of these, 123 patients received the BVS (163 scaffolds; 151 lesions), whereas in 141 patients the EES (203 stents; 176 lesions) was implanted. The median follow-up was 931 +/- 514 days. The primary endpoint at 12 months occurred in 9.7% in the BVS group and in 8.5% in the EES group (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-7.56; p = 0.076). At 24 months the incidence of the primary endpoint was 15.2% in the BVS group and 14.9% in the EES group (HR = 2.46; 95% CI: 0.85-7.07; p = 0.095). The rates of PoCE, ST, device, and procedural success were also comparable in both groups. Conclusions: STEMI patients treated with the BVS showed statistically similar rates of primary and secondary endpoints compared with the EES.