BACKGROUND: Overlapping implantation of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) are frequent in long coronary lesions. Its impact on clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with overlapping BRS with those patients treated with no-overlap BRS. METHODS: We analyzed the 1-year clinical outcomes of 1,477 patients treated with BRS in the GHOST-EU registry, according to the implantation of overlapping BRS. Primary endpoint was patient oriented composite endpoint (PoCE) of: all-cause death, any myocardial infarction (MI) and any repeated revascularization. Scaffold thrombosis, according to Academic Research Consortium definition, was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 320 (21.7%) patients were treated with overlapping BRS (overlap group), whereas the remaining 1,157 (78.3%) received no-overlap BRS (no-overlap group). The overlap group had significantly higher frequency of male sex, diabetes mellitus, stable angina, B2/C lesion type, SYNTAX score ≥22, lesion length >34 mm, use of intracoronary imaging guidance, pre- and postdilatation. At 1-year, there were no differences in PoCE between the overlap versus no-overlap group (18.4% vs. 18.2%; HR 1.07, [0.80-1.44]; P = 0.636), even after adjustment (HR 1.05, [0.48-2.20]; P = 0.904). Scaffold thrombosis rate did not differ either at one-month (1.3% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.769) or at 1-year (1.9% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.823). CONCLUSIONS: In "Real-world" clinical practice, overlapping BRS does not appear to have an impact on clinical outcomes as compared to no-overlapping BRS. These preliminary data should be confirmed. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Impact of overlapping on 1-year clinical outcomes in patients undergoing everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds implantation in routine clinical practice: Insights from the European multicenter GHOST-EU registry / Ortega-Paz, Luis; Capodanno, Davide; Giacchi, Giuseppe; Gori, Tommaso; Nef, Holger; Latib, Azeem; Caramanno, Giuseppe; Di Mario, Carlo; Naber, Christoph; Lesiak, Maciej; Capranzano, Piera; Wiebe, Jens; Mehilli, Julinda; Araszkiewicz, Aleksander; Pyxaras, Stelios; Mattesini, Alessio; Geraci, Salvatore; Naganuma, Toru; Colombo, Antonio; Münzel, Thomas; Sabaté, Manel; Tamburino, Corrado; Brugaletta, Salvatore*. - In: CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS. - ISSN 1522-1946. - ELETTRONICO. - 89:(2017), pp. 812-818. [10.1002/ccd.26674]

Impact of overlapping on 1-year clinical outcomes in patients undergoing everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds implantation in routine clinical practice: Insights from the European multicenter GHOST-EU registry

Di Mario, Carlo;Mattesini, Alessio;Geraci, Salvatore;
2017

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Overlapping implantation of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) are frequent in long coronary lesions. Its impact on clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with overlapping BRS with those patients treated with no-overlap BRS. METHODS: We analyzed the 1-year clinical outcomes of 1,477 patients treated with BRS in the GHOST-EU registry, according to the implantation of overlapping BRS. Primary endpoint was patient oriented composite endpoint (PoCE) of: all-cause death, any myocardial infarction (MI) and any repeated revascularization. Scaffold thrombosis, according to Academic Research Consortium definition, was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 320 (21.7%) patients were treated with overlapping BRS (overlap group), whereas the remaining 1,157 (78.3%) received no-overlap BRS (no-overlap group). The overlap group had significantly higher frequency of male sex, diabetes mellitus, stable angina, B2/C lesion type, SYNTAX score ≥22, lesion length >34 mm, use of intracoronary imaging guidance, pre- and postdilatation. At 1-year, there were no differences in PoCE between the overlap versus no-overlap group (18.4% vs. 18.2%; HR 1.07, [0.80-1.44]; P = 0.636), even after adjustment (HR 1.05, [0.48-2.20]; P = 0.904). Scaffold thrombosis rate did not differ either at one-month (1.3% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.769) or at 1-year (1.9% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.823). CONCLUSIONS: In "Real-world" clinical practice, overlapping BRS does not appear to have an impact on clinical outcomes as compared to no-overlapping BRS. These preliminary data should be confirmed. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2017
89
812
818
Ortega-Paz, Luis; Capodanno, Davide; Giacchi, Giuseppe; Gori, Tommaso; Nef, Holger; Latib, Azeem; Caramanno, Giuseppe; Di Mario, Carlo; Naber, Christo...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1135662
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 19
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact