Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 3, 2025
Fabrication of Small Caliber Stent-grafts Using Electrospinning and Balloon Expandable Bare Metal Stents
Published on: October 26, 2016
Comparison Between Bare-Metal Stents, First-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents, and Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds
Andrew Kei-Yan Ng1, Pauline Yeung Ng, Chung-Wah Siu
1Grantham Hospital, 125 Wong Chuk Hand Road, Hong Kong.
Background:
The long-term clinical outcomes after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation have been extensively compared with second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, but not with bare-metal stent (BMS) or first-generation DES options.
Objective:
To compare the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rates after implantation of BVS, first-generation DES, and BMS.
Methods:
This was a single-center observational study based on a registry of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The primary endpoint was MACE at 3 years, defined as a composite endpoint of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization.
Results:
A total of 170 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with implantation of everolimus-eluting BVS (Absorb; Abbott Cardiovascular) between 2014 and 2017 were compared with a control group of 622 patients implanted with BMS and 604 patients implanted with first-generation DES from 2001 to 2005. In adjusted analysis, DES had a lower risk of MACE at 3 years compared with BMS (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.81; P<.01), while BVS had a similar risk of MACE compared with BMS (adjusted OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55-1.52; P=.72). When compared with DES, BVS had a similar risk of MACE (adjusted OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.83-2.53; P=.19).
Conclusions:
In patients with BVS implantation, the risk of the composite outcome of MACE at 3 years was not significantly different when compared with patients with BMS or first-generation DES implantation.
