Dataset Information

Feasibility of second-generation bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in complex anatomical and clinical scenarios.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have become an emerging tool to treat coronary artery disease. However, the current use of BVS is still widely restricted to stable patients and non-complex lesions. In real-world practice patients are far more complex than those with simple type A lesions and the extended use of BVS to complex lesions and high-risk patients needs to be evaluated. Therefore, we sought to investigate the feasibility and performance of BVS in a broad spectrum of patients.

Methods

106 patients underwent in total 193 BVS implantations. We assessed the device-related (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and patient-related (all-cause death, any reinfarction and any revascularization) composite outcomes.

Results

90 % of patients (n = 95) had at least one of the following characteristics: >65 years (35 %), ACS (42 %), tortuous vessels (13 %), calcified (17 %) or thrombotic lesions (12 %), lesions defined as AHA type B2/C (42 %), bifurcations (16 %), chronic total occlusions (9 %) or restenosis (14 %). There was no evidence of significant edge dissection, huge thrombus load or incidence of scaffold dislodgement or scaffold disruption in optical coherence tomography pullbacks. Out of 10,157 struts evaluated within 1,117 cross-sections, 302 were classified as malapposed (2.9 %). During a mean follow-up of 147 ± 119 days the rate of device-related events was 2.0 %, whereas patient-related composite events occurred in 6.1 %.

Conclusions

Our results strongly suggest that BVS implantation is feasible in a wide spectrum of patients and complex anatomy of coronary lesions. Long-term outcome of BVS should be further investigated in unrestricted settings in randomized controlled trials.

SUBMITTER: Jaguszewski M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4315475 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/aimsDrug eluting stent (DES) decrease the risk of restenosis by reducing the neointimal response. However, DES may impair strut coverage, and this has been associated with late stent/scaffold thrombosis. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) may overcome the risk of stent/scaffold thrombosis when completely resorbed. The purpose of this randomised trial was to compare the arterial healing response in the short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (Synergy; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) and the everolimus BVS (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) in the particular setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This pilot study sought to compare the neointimal response of metallic everolimus DES (Synergy) with polymeric everolimus BVS (Absorb) by optical coherence tomography (OCT) 3 months after an AMI.MethodsCOVER-AMI was a single-centre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated (1:1) to treatment with the Synergy DES or Absorb BVS. The primary endpoint was the 3-month neointimal response assessed as the percentage of uncovered struts, neointimal thickness, in-stent/scaffold area obstruction, and pattern of neointima. The main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint according to the Academic Research Consortium definition.ResultsTwenty patients without clinical and/or angiographic complications (Synergy (n = 10) or BVS (n = 10); mean age 59.0 years; 20% female) were enrolled in our centre. The stent diameter was higher in the Synergy group (3.7 ± 0.4 mm vs 3.4 ± 0.4 mm in the BVS group, p = 0.01). At 3 months, no significant differences in angiographic lumen loss were observed between the everolimus DES and everolimus BVS (0.04 mm (IQR 0.00-0.07) vs 0.11 mm (IQR 0.04-0.31), p = 0.165). OCT analysis of 420 cross-sections showed that the total neointimal area and in-stent obstruction were lower in the Synergy group, while OCT analysis at the strut level (n = 3942 struts) showed that the rate of uncovered struts was lower in the BVS group.ConclusionsStenting of culprit lesions in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing for both the Synergy and the BVS devices. Lower neointimal thickness and in-stent obstruction but a higher rate of uncovered struts were observed in the Synergy group. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

Project description:Background Early generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) showed a high grade of coronary endothelial dysfunction that was attributed to lack of stent reendothelialization. Endothelium-dependent vasomotor response of current DESs and bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) remains unknown. This study sought to assess the device-related endothelial function of current devices and to correlate neointima healing with endothelial function. Methods and Results A total of 206 patients from 4 randomized trials treated with the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting Xience (n=44), bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro (n=35), polymer-free biolimus-eluting Biofreedom (n=24), bioactive endothelial-progenitor cell-capturing sirolimus-eluting Combo DES (n=25), polymer-based everolimus-eluting Absorb (n=44), and Mg-based sirolimus-eluting Magmaris BRS (n=34) underwent endothelium-dependent vasomotor tests and optical coherence tomography imaging, as per protocol, at follow-up. Crude vasomotor responses of distal segments to low-dose acetylcholine (10-6 mol/L) were different between groups: bioresorbablepolymer DEShad the worst (-8.4%±12.6%) and durable-polymer DES had the most physiologic (-0.4%±11.8%; P=0.014). High-dose acetylcholine (10-4 mol/L) showed similar responses between groups (ranging from -10.8%±11.6% to -18.1%±15.4%; P=0.229). Device healing was different between devices. Uncovered struts ranged from 6.3%±7.1% (bioresorbable-polymer DES) to 2.5%±4.5% (bioactive DES; P=0.056). In multivariate models, endothelium-dependent vasomotor response was associated with age, bioresorbable-polymer DES, and angiographic lumen loss, but not with strut coverage nor plaque type. Endothelial dysfunction (defined as ≥4% vasoconstriction) was observed in 46.6% of patients with low-dose and 68.9% with high-dose acetylcholine, without differences between groups. Conclusions At follow-up, endothelial dysfunction was frequently observed in distal segments treated with current stents without remarkable differences between devices. Although neointima healing was different between devices, poor healing was not associated with endothelial dysfunction.