RT Journal Article
T1 Procedural and Long-Term Outcomes of Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions The BONITO Registry (Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions)
A1 Azzalini, Lorenzo
A1 Giustino, Gennaro
A1 Ojeda, Soledad
A1 Serra, Antonio
A1 La Manna, Alessio
A1 Ly, Hung Q.
A1 Bellini, Barbara
A1 Benincasa, Susanna
A1 Chavarria, Jorge
A1 Gheorghe, Livia L.
A1 Longo, Giovanni
A1 Micciche, Eligio
A1 D'Agosta, Guido
A1 Picard, Fabien
A1 Pan, Manuel
A1 Tamburino, Corrado
A1 Latib, Azeem
A1 Carlino, Mauro
A1 Chieffo, Alaide
A1 Colombo, Antonio
K1 Comorbidity
K1 Drug-eluting stents
K1 Follow-up studies
K1 Myocardial infarction
K1 Regression analysis
AB Background-There is little evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) for the percutaneous treatment of chronic total occlusions.Methods and Results-We performed a multicenter registry of consecutive chronic total occlusion patients treated with BRS (Absorb; Abbott Vascular) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 5 institutions. Long-term target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was the primary end point. Inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Cox regression was used to account for pretreatment differences between the 2 groups. A total of 537 patients (n=153 BRS; n=384 DES) were included. BRS patients were younger and had lower prevalence of comorbidities. Overall mean Japan-Chronic Total Occlusion (J-CTO) score was 1.43 +/- 1.16, with no differences between groups. Procedural success was achieved in 99.3% and 96.6% of BRS-and DES-treated patients, respectively (P=0.07). At a median follow-up of 703 days, there were no differences in target-vessel failure between BRS and DES (4.6% versus 7.7%; P=0.21). By adjusted Cox regression analysis, there were still no significant differences between BRS and DES (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-3.72; P=0.34). However, secondary analyses suggested a signal toward higher ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS.Conclusions-Implantation of BRS versus second-generation DES in chronic total occlusion was associated with similar risk of target-vessel failure at long-term follow-up. However, a signal toward increased ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS was observed. Large randomized studies should confirm these findings.
PB Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
SN 1941-7640
YR 2016
FD 2016-09-19
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10668/19089
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10668/19089
LA en
NO Azzalini L, Giustino G, Ojeda S, Serra A, La Manna A, Ly HQ, et al. Procedural and Long-Term Outcomes of Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions: The BONITO Registry (Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Occlusions). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Oct;9(10):e004284
DS RISalud
RD Apr 19, 2025