Dataset Information

Are acute coronary syndromes an ideal scenario for bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation?

ABSTRACT: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) represent the latest innovation in the field of interventional cardiology. BRS have recently been introduced in routine clinical practice and their use has progressively extended in everyday clinical practice. The BRS use appears theoretically attractive in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) as they are generally young with long life expectancy, thus possibly benefiting more of the so-called vascular reparative therapy. Furthermore, "culprit" lesions are usually softer and more easily expandable by current BRS compared to stable chronic lesions. However an increased risk of BRS thrombosis has been reported in clinical trials excluding ACS patients. Therefore, concerns have been raised on the safety of BRS implantation in the ACS setting in which the risk of thrombotic recurrences is definitely higher (compared to stable lesions) independently by the device implanted. Aim of this review is to provide an overview of the available data on the BRS performance in ACS patients.

SUBMITTER: Moscarella E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5583090 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are acute coronary syndromes an ideal scenario for bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation?

Moscarella Elisabetta E Ielasi Alfonso A De Angelis Maria Carmen MC di Uccio Fortunato Scotto FS Cerrato Enrico E De Rosa Roberta R Campo Gianluca G Varricchio Attilio A

Journal of thoracic disease 20170801 Suppl 9

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) represent the latest innovation in the field of interventional cardiology. BRS have recently been introduced in routine clinical practice and their use has progressively extended in everyday clinical practice. The BRS use appears theoretically attractive in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) as they are generally young with long life expectancy, thus possibly benefiting more of the so-called vascular reparative therapy. Furthermore, "cu ...[more]

PMID: 28894603

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.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study was conducted to use optical coherence tomography (OCT) to compare vascular healing between bioresorbable polymer (BP) and durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).BackgroundWhether BP-EES induce better vascular healing compared to contemporary DP-EES remains controversial, especially for ACS.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial, we used OCT to compare 6-month vascular healing in patients with ACS randomized to BP versus DP-EES: percent strut coverage (primary endpoint, non-inferiority margin of 2.0%) and neointimal thickness and percent neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) volume. As an exploratory analysis, morphological factors related to the endpoints and the effect of underlying lipidic plaque on stent healing were evaluated.ResultsA total of 104 patients with ACS were randomly assigned to BP-EES (n = 52) versus DP-EES (n = 52). Of these, 86 patients (40 BP-EES and 46 DP-EES) were included in the final OCT analyses. Six-month percent strut coverage of BP-EES (83.6 ± 11.4%) was not non-inferior compared to those of DP-EES (81.6 ± 13.9%), difference 2.0% (lower 95% confidence interval-2.6%), pnon-inferiority = 0.07. There were no differences in neointimal thickness 70.0 ± 33.9 μm versus 67.2 ± 33.9 μm, p = 0.71; and percent NIH volume 7.5 ± 4.7% versus 7.3 ± 5.3%, p = 0.85. By multivariable linear regression analysis, stent type was not associated with percent strut coverage or percent NIH volume; however, percent baseline embedded struts or stent expansion was positively associated with percent NIH volume. Greater NIH volume was observed in lipidic compared with non-lipidic segments (8.7 ± 5.6% vs. 6.1 ± 5.2%, p = 0.005).ConclusionsSix-month strut coverage of BP-EES was not non-inferior compared to those of DP-EES in ACS patients. Good stent apposition and expansion were independently associated with better vascular healing.

Dataset Information

Are acute coronary syndromes an ideal scenario for bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation?

Publications

Are acute coronary syndromes an ideal scenario for bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets