Clinical outcomes of overlapping versus non‐overlapping everolimus‐eluting absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: An analysis from the multicentre prospective RAI registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02298413)

Objectives To compare clinical outcomes of patients treated with overlapping versus non‐overlapping Absorb BVS. Background: Limited data are available on the clinical impact of stent overlap with the Absorb BVS bioresorbable stent. Methods: We compared outcomes of patients receiving overlapping or non‐overlapping Absorb BVS in the multicenter prospective RAI Registry. Results: Out of 1,505 consecutive patients treated with Absorb BVS, 1,384 were eligible for this analysis. Of these, 377 (27%) were in the overlap group, and 1,007 (73%) in the non‐overlap group. The most frequent overlap configuration was the marker‐to‐marker type (48%), followed by marker‐over‐marker (46%) and marker‐inside‐marker (6%) types. Patients of the overlap group had higher prevalence of multivessel disease and higher SYNTAX score, and required more frequently the use of intravascular imaging. At a median follow‐up of 368 days, no difference was observed between overlap and non‐overlap groups in terms of a device‐related composite endpoint (cardiac death, TV‐MI, ID‐TLR) (5.8% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.20) or of a patient‐related composite endpoint (any death, any MI, any revascularization) (15.4% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.18). Cardiac death (1.0% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.54), MI (4.5% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.51), TVR (4.5% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.51) and stent thrombosis (1.1 vs. 1.5%, P = 1.00) were also comparable between groups. When assessing outcomes of the overlap population according to overlap configurations used, no difference was observed in terms of the device‐ or patient‐related composite endpoints. Conclusions: Outcomes of patients with or without overlapping BVS were comparable at mid‐term follow‐up despite higher angiographic complexity of the overlap subset. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.