Comparison of clinical outcomes between bioresorbable vascular stents versus conventional drug-eluting and metallic stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.


Journal Article (Review)

AIMS: Several studies have suggested good procedural and similar clinical outcomes between everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable stents (BRS) versus conventional drug-eluting stents (DES), but the evidence is not definitive. Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of BRS versus conventional drug-eluting and bare metallic stents on the cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The follow-up in the included studies was up to 13 months. The following endpoints were evaluated: all-cause mortality, cardiac death, patient-oriented major adverse cardiac events (POCE), device-oriented major adverse cardiac events (DOCE), any-cause myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI (TVMI), target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). The results of 10 studies with 5,773 subjects showed a statistically significant increase in the risk of TVMI between BRS and conventional stents (odds ratio [OR]: 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.05, p=0.032). None of the other differences reached statistical significance: all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.30-1.49, p=0.333), cardiac death (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.47-2.12, p=0.996), POCE (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.68-1.22, p=0.546), DOCE (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86-1.46, p=0.387), any-cause MI (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.98-1.82, p=0.064), TVR (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.73-1.33, p=0.934) and TLR (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.29, p=0.641). Similar results were observed after restricting the meta-analysis to the comparison of BRS vs. EES. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests a significantly higher risk of TVMI with BRS compared with conventional stents and no significant differences in the rates of occurrence of the other outcomes during one-year follow-up. Further studies with larger samples sizes, longer follow-up, different clinical scenarios and more complex lesions are required to confirm or refute our findings.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Banach, M; Serban, M-C; Sahebkar, A; García-García, HM; Mikhailidis, DP; Martin, SS; Brie, D; Rysz, J; Toth, PP; Jones, SR; Hasan, RK; Mosteoru, S; Al Rifai, M; Pencina, MJ; Serruys, PW

Published Date

  • June 12, 2016

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 12 / 2

Start / End Page

  • e175 - e189

PubMed ID

  • 27290677

Pubmed Central ID

  • 27290677

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1969-6213

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.4244/EIJY16M06_02


  • eng

Conference Location

  • France