Magnesium bioresorbable scaffold (Magmaris) versus polymer biodegradable ultrathin drug-eluting stent (Ultimaster) in acute coronary syndrome. Mid-term outcomes (2 years)

Abstract

Introduction Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a well-known risk factor for adverse clinical outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Therefore, evaluation of coronary stents in this challenging clinical scenario can provide unique information on device safety and efficacy. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were designed to overcome long-term complications related to permanent vessel caging with a permanent metallic drug-eluting stent (DES). Aim We designed this study to evaluate the mid-term safety and efficiency of the Magmaris BRS in comparison to the leading new-generation ultrathin DES Ultimaster in the ACS population. Material and methods We present a retrospective analysis of 2-year follow-up data. The primary outcomes consisted of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and in-stent thrombosis. The second main study endpoint was defined as target-lesion failure (TLF). Results The study population consisted of two cohorts, the first of 193 patients treated with Magmaris implantation and the second of 169 patients treated with Ultimaster implantation. At the 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in both study cohorts in terms of primary outcome (5.1% vs. 11%; p = 0.051), and TLF (5.6% vs. 8%, p = 0.41). Conclusions Treatment with a second-generation BRS (Magmaris) versus a novel second-generation DES (Ultimaster) in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) was associated with similar rates of target lesion failure at 2-year follow-up.

Two-Year Outcomes for Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated with Magmaris and Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Large-Vessel Lesions

“…The baseline clinical and procedural characteristics of both study cohorts have been well described [10][11][12][13][14]16,17,21]; however, we present all data in Tables 1 and 2. In brief, this study consisted of two arms.…”