Affiliations 

  • 1 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, United States
  • 2 Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
  • 3 University Hospital St. Ekaterina, Sofia, Bulgaria
  • 4 SUSCCH, a.s., Banska Bystrica, Slovakia
  • 5 Sarawak Heart Centre, Sarawak, Malaysia
  • 6 Nemocnice na Homolce - Kardiologie, Prague, Czech Republic
  • 7 MBAL St. Ivan Rilski, Bulgaria
  • 8 Alhyatt Cardiovascular Center and Tanta University Hospital, Egypt
  • 9 Breda Amphia, Breda, Netherlands
  • 10 Hospital of Invasive Cardiology IKARDIA - Lublin/Nałęczów, Poland
  • 11 Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Spain
  • 12 T. Bata Regional Hospital Zlin, Zlin, Czech Republic
  • 13 Al-Dorrah Heart Center, Cairo, Egypt
  • 14 Bina Waluya Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • 15 Conquest Hospital, East Sussex, UK
  • 16 Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • 17 Hospital Universitario Burgos, Burgos, Spain
  • 18 University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
  • 19 Hospital Queen Elizabeth II, Sabah, Malaysia
  • 20 Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong
  • 21 Amsterdam UMC, Heart Center, Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • 22 San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc, 2020 Dec;31:100605.
PMID: 32953969 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100605

Abstract

Background: The COMBO stent is a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with endothelial progenitor cell capture technology for faster endothelialization.

Objective: We analyzed COMBO stent outcomes in relation to bleeding risk using the PARIS bleeding score.

Methods: MASCOT was an international registry of all-comers undergoing attempted COMBO stent implantation. We stratified patients as low bleeding-risk (LBR) for PARIS score ≤ 3 and intermediate-to-high (IHBR) for score > 3 based on baseline age, body mass index, anemia, current smoking, chronic kidney disease and need for triple therapy. Primary endpoint was 1-year target lesion failure (TLF), composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) not clearly attributed to a non-target vessel or clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Bleeding was adjudicated using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation was independently adjudicated.

Results: The study included 56% (n = 1270) LBR and 44% (n = 1009) IHBR patients. Incidence of 1-year TLF was higher in IHBR patients (4.1% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.047) driven by cardiac death (1.7% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.029) with similar rates of MI (1.8% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.17), TLR (1.5% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.89) and definite/ probable stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.16). Incidence of 1-year major BARC 3 or 5 bleeding was significantly higher in IHBR patients (2.3% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.0094), as was the incidence of DAPT cessation (29.3% vs. 22.8%, p 

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications