126Clinical outcomes at two years of the Absorb BRS vs. the Xience metallic DES in patients presenting with ACS vs. stable coronary disease - AIDA trial substudy

AIMS Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention, might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment. ACS patients (STE-ACS patients in particular) are generally younger, and most often have lesions with softer plaques, a lower plaque burden and less extensive coronary artery disease. In this pre-specified subgroup analysis of the AIDA trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb BVS versus Xience EES treated patients presenting with or without ACS. Methods and results This analysis includes the 2-year outcomes of all 1845 patients randomized in the AIDA trial subdivided by clinical presentation, a pre-specified subgroup analysis. We compared patients presenting with ACS with those presenting without ACS (ACS versus no-ACS patients). Patients presenting with ACS were further sub-categorized according to the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation at presentation (STE-ACS versus NSTE-ACS patients). Baseline status by clinical presentation was known in all patients, and 842 (45.6%) patients presented with ACS, 456 (25.2%) with STE-ACS and 377 (20.4%) with NSTE-ACS.The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; p=0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7% respectively; p=0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7% respectively, p=0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2% respectively; p=0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (p=0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (p=0.17). Conclusions In ACS patients within AIDA, we found no difference in rates of target vessel failure between the Absorb BVS and Xience EES groups. Rates of definite or definite/probable device thrombosis were higher in the Absorb BVS group throughout all clinical presentations. No significant interaction between ACS and no-ACS patients and the occurrence of TVF Acknowledgement/Funding The AIDA trial was financially supported by an unrestricted research grant from Abbott Vascular.