1-Year Outcomes of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents A Propensity-Matched Comparison of the GHOST-EU and XIENCE v USA Registries

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcomes of the ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) and the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Randomized studies of the ABSORB BRS have been performed in selected patient and lesion scenarios. The available registries of the ABSORB BRS reflect real-world practice more closely compared with randomized studies, but most of them are limited by the small sample size and the lack of comparative outcomes versus second-generation drug-eluting stents. METHODS: A total of 1,189 consecutive patients treated with ABSORB BRS from the GHOST-EU (Gauging coronary Healing with bioresorbable Scaffolding plaTforms in EUrope) registry and 5,034 patients treated with XIENCE EES from the XIENCE V USA registry were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity-score matching techniques and reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates and absolute risk difference (D) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After propensity score matching was performed for the entire population (N = 6,223), there were 905 matched pairs of patients. In the matched cohort (N = 1,810), there was no significant difference between ABSORB BRS and XIENCE EES in the risk of device-oriented composite endpoint at 1 year (5.8% vs. 7.6%, D = -1.8 [95% CI: -4.1 to 0.5]; p = 0.12). Cardiac death was less likely to occur in the ABSORB BRS group (0.7% vs. 1.9%, D = -1.2 [95% CI: -2.2 to 0.2]; p = 0.03), and a trend toward a reduction in myocardial infarction was noted with ABSORB BRS compared with XIENCE EES (2.4% vs. 4.0%, D = -1.6 [95% CI: -3.2 to 0.0]; p = 0.07). Conversely, no differences in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.6% vs. 3.5%, D = 1.1 [95% CI: -0.7 to 2.9]; p = 0.22) and definite or probable device thrombosis (1.8% vs. 1.1%, D = 0.7 [95% CI: -0.4 to 1.8]; p = 0.23) were detected between ABSORB BRS and XIENCE EES. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary large cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with ABSORB BRS, the combined rate of ischemic events at 1 year was low and nonsignificantly different compared with matched patients treated with XIENCE EES.