Abstract Background: Several studies compared everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (EE-BRS) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES), but only few assessed these devices in patients with diabetes mellitus.Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of all-comer patients with diabetes up to 2 years after treatment with EE-BRS or EES.Methods: We performed a post-hoc pooled analysis of patient-level data in diabetic patients who were treated with EE-BRS or EES in 3 prospective clinical trials: The ABSORB DM Benelux Study (NTR5447), TWENTE (NTR1256/NCT01066650) and DUTCH PEERS (NTR2413/NCT01331707). Primary endpoint of the analysis was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or clinically driven target vessel revascularization, as well as definite or probable device thrombosis (ST).Results: A total of 499 diabetic patients were assessed, of whom 150 received EE-BRS and 249 received EES. Total available follow-up was 222.6 patient years (PY) in EE-BRS and 464.9 PY in EES. The adverse events rates were similar in both treatment groups for TLF (7.2 vs. 5.2 events per 100 PY, p=0.39; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-2.87), p=0.24), MACE (9.1 vs. 8.3 per 100 PY, p=0.83; adjusted HR=1.23 (95% CI: 0.70-2.17), p=0.47), and ST (0.9 vs. 0.6 per 100 PY, p>0.99).Conclusion: In this patient-level pooled analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus from 3 clinical trials, EE-BRS showed clinical outcomes that were quite similar to EES.

Background Several studies compared everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (EE-BRS) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES), but only few assessed these devices in patients with diabetes mellitus. Aim To evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of all-comer patients with diabetes up to 2 years after treatment with EE-BRS or EES. Methods We performed a post-hoc pooled analysis of patient-level data in diabetic patients who were treated with EE-BRS or EES in 3 prospective clinical trials: The ABSORB DM Benelux Study (NTR5447), TWENTE (NTR1256/NCT01066650) and DUTCH PEERS (NTR2413/NCT01331707). Primary endpoint of the analysis was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or clinically driven target vessel revascularization, as well as definite or probable device thrombosis (ST). Results A total of 499 diabetic patients were assessed, of whom 150 received EE-BRS and 249 received EES. Total available follow-up was 222.6 patient years (PY) in EE-BRS and 464.9 PY in EES. The adverse events rates were similar in both treatment groups for TLF (7.2 vs. 5.2 events per 100 PY, p=0.39; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-2.87), p=0.24), MACE (9.1 vs. 8.3 per 100 PY, p=0.83; adjusted HR=1.23 (95% CI: 0.70-2.17), p=0.47), and ST (0.9 vs. 0.6 per 100 PY, p>0.99). Conclusion In this patient-level pooled analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus from 3 clinical trials, EE-BRS showed clinical outcomes that were quite similar to EES.