Ricerca avanzata

Home > Riviste > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2016 Febbraio;64(1) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2016 Febbraio;64(1):74-83



Rivista sulle Malattie del Cuore e dei Vasi

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,752

Periodicità: Bimestrale

ISSN 0026-4725

Online ISSN 1827-1618


Minerva Cardioangiologica 2016 Febbraio;64(1):74-83


Performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a review of currently available clinical data

Dario BUCCHERI 1, 2, Davide PIRAINO 1, 2, Paola R. CHIRCO 2, Bernardo CORTESE 1

1 Azienda Ospedaliera Fatebenefratelli, Milan, Italy; 2 Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, Palermo, Italy

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) represents a breakthrough in interventional cardiology. Despite BVS is used in various settings, nowadays only few studies compared BVS outcome with everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. We analyzed the currently available scientific data of direct and indirect comparison between BVS and EES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Our paper highlights consistently different procedural techniques between BVS and EES. Across the wide spectrum of the studies analyzed, the clinical outcomes was similar between the two treatments. Some studies show an increased rate of device thrombosis although never significant and probably related to the technique of implantation. According to our analysis, from several points of view the BVS technology appears not inferior to EES in PPCI. Moreover, in this setting BVS seems an intriguing option for young patients, due to frequent incidence of single vessel disease in these patients, restore of vascular motility after reabsorption and no presence of ethernal prosthesis. However, we deem necessary a direct comparison between the two technologies, assessing hard clinical endpoints.

lingua: Inglese


inizio pagina