Everolimus- Versus Novolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease: A Matched Comparison

Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcome of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (eBRS) and Novolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (nBRS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-life clinical practice scenario. Background eBRS and nBRS are available and have been proved safe for coronary artery stenting in well-selected patients. Methods Consecutive patients who underwent bioresorbable scaffold implantation were evaluated retrospectively via 2:1 propensity matching. Target lesion failure comprising cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was examined after 12 months, along with its individual components as well as scaffold thrombosis. Results A total 506 patients were available for matching. Of these, 212 eBRS patients (mean age = 62.9 years) and 106 nBRS patients (mean age = 63.1 years) were analyzed after matching. Baseline characteristics and clinical presentation were comparable in both groups. Acute coronary syndromes were present in 53.3% of the eBRS group and in 48.1% of the nBRS group (p = 0.383). Lesion characteristics were also similar. Pre-dilation (99.5% vs. 98.1%; p = 0.218) and post-dilation (84.4% vs. 86.8%; p = 0.576) were performed in the same proportion of matched eBRS and nBRS patients, respectively. The 1-year rates of target lesion failure (4.7% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.851), target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.768), cardiac death (1.5% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.752), and definite scaffold thrombosis (2.0% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.529) did not differ significantly between the eBRS and nBRS groups. Conclusions The present study reveals comparable clinical results for the 2 types of bioresorbable scaffolds when used during routine practice, but further evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed.