TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents by coronary complexity
T2 - A sub-analysis of the AIDA trial
AU - Collaborators
AU - Kraak, Robin P
AU - Tijssen, Ruben Yannick G
AU - van Dongen, Ivo M
AU - Elias, Joelle
AU - Hofma, Sjoerd H
AU - van der Schaaf, Rene J
AU - Arkenbout, E Karin
AU - Weevers, Auke
AU - Tijssen, Jan G P
AU - Piek, Jan J
AU - de Winter, Robbert J
AU - Henriques, Jose P S
AU - Wykrzykowska, Joanna J
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Aims: We aimed to evaluate the impact of the complexity of coronary disease as assessed by the SYNTAX score (SXscore) on the clinical outcomes in the AIDA trial. Methods and results: In the AIDA trial, we compared Absorb versus XIENCE in routine clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were stratified by SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXscore ≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). The SXscore was available in 1,661 of the 1,845 (90%) patients. The event rate of TVF was numerically lower in Absorb compared to XIENCE (3.7% versus 5.6%; p=0.257) in the SXlow tertile, numerically higher in Absorb in the SXmid tertile (11.4% versus 9.3%, p=0.421) and similar in the SXhigh tertile (15.5% versus 15.6%; p=0.960). The rates of definite/probable device thrombosis in Absorb versus XIENCE were significantly higher in the SXmid tertile (3.3% versus 0.8%, p=0.043) and in the SXhigh tertile (3.7% versus 0.8%, p=0.006). Conclusions: We found no significantly different rates of TVF between Absorb and XIENCE patients. Absorb-treated patients in the SXmid and SXhigh tertiles had an increased risk of device thrombosis when compared to XIENCE-treated patients. The rates of device thrombosis in the SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, are more acceptable than in the SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles.
AB - Aims: We aimed to evaluate the impact of the complexity of coronary disease as assessed by the SYNTAX score (SXscore) on the clinical outcomes in the AIDA trial. Methods and results: In the AIDA trial, we compared Absorb versus XIENCE in routine clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were stratified by SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXscore ≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). The SXscore was available in 1,661 of the 1,845 (90%) patients. The event rate of TVF was numerically lower in Absorb compared to XIENCE (3.7% versus 5.6%; p=0.257) in the SXlow tertile, numerically higher in Absorb in the SXmid tertile (11.4% versus 9.3%, p=0.421) and similar in the SXhigh tertile (15.5% versus 15.6%; p=0.960). The rates of definite/probable device thrombosis in Absorb versus XIENCE were significantly higher in the SXmid tertile (3.3% versus 0.8%, p=0.043) and in the SXhigh tertile (3.7% versus 0.8%, p=0.006). Conclusions: We found no significantly different rates of TVF between Absorb and XIENCE patients. Absorb-treated patients in the SXmid and SXhigh tertiles had an increased risk of device thrombosis when compared to XIENCE-treated patients. The rates of device thrombosis in the SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, are more acceptable than in the SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076463645&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00884
DO - https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00884
M3 - Article
C2 - 31062692
SN - 1774-024X
VL - 16
SP - e904-e912
JO - Eurointervention
JF - Eurointervention
IS - 11
ER -