Risk and timing of clinical events according to diabetic status of patients treated with everolimus‐eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus‐eluting stent: 2‐year results from a propensity score matched comparison of ABSORB EXTEND and SPIRIT trials

Objectives to compare the occurrence of clinical events in diabetics treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) versus everolimus‐eluting metal stents (EES; XIENCE V; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) Background There are limited data dedicated to clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) at 2‐year horizon. Methods The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID‐MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID‐TLR). Results After 2 years, the ID‐MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group ( P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin‐ and non‐insulin‐requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2‐year follow‐up for the Absorb and Xience groups. Conclusion In this largest ever patient‐level pooled comparison on the treatment of diabetic patients with BRS out to two years, individuals with diabetes treated with the Absorb BVS had a similar rate of MACE as compared with diabetics treated with the Xience EES. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.