Three‐year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus‐eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus—AIDA sub‐study

Background In this prespecified AIDA‐trial sub‐study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3‐yea...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2021-10, Vol.98 (4), p.713-720, Article ccd.29329
Main Authors: Kerkmeijer, Laura S.M., Tijssen, Ruben Y.G., Hofma, Sjoerd H., Schaaf, Rene J., Arkenbout, E. Karin, Weevers, Auke P.J.D., Kraak, Robin P., Onuma, Yoshinobu, Serruys, Patrick W., Piek, Jan J., Tijssen, Jan G.P., Henriques, Jose P.S., Winter, Robbert J., Wykrzykowska, Joanna J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
bioresorbable scaffolds
Clinical outcomes
Coronary Artery Disease
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus
drug eluting stents
Implants
Insulin
Myocardial infarction
Original Studies
Patients
Stents
Thrombosis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background In this prespecified AIDA‐trial sub‐study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3‐year follow‐up. Methods and results All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin‐treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p 
ISSN:1522-1946
1522-726X
DOI:10.1002/ccd.29329