Clinical outcomes following target lesion revascularization for bioresorbable scaffold failure

Procedural Results and One-Year Clinical Outcomes of Treatment of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Restenosis (from the RIBS VII Prospective Study)

Currently, both drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-eluting balloons are recommended in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of metallic stents. However, the clinical results of repeated interventions in patients with restenosis of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) remain unsettled. We sought to assess the results of interventions in patients with BVS-ISR as compared with those obtained in patients with ISR of DES and bare-metal stents (BMS). Restenosis Intrastent: Treatment of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Restenosis (RIBS VII) is a prospective multicenter study (23 Spanish sites) that included 117 consecutive patients treated for BVS-ISR. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar to those of previous RIBS studies. Patients in the RIBS IV (DES-ISR, n = 309) and RIBS V (BMS - ISR, n = 189) randomized trials, were used as controls. Most patients with BVS-ISR were treated with DES (76%). Patients with BVS-ISR were younger, had larger vessels, and after interventions had higher in-segment residual diameter stenosis (19 ± 13%, 15 ± 11%, 15 ± 12%, p <0.001) than those treated for DES-ISR and BMS-ISR, respectively. At 1-year clinical follow-up (obtained in 100% of patients) target lesion revascularization (6%) was similar to that seen in patients with DES-ISR and BMS-ISR (8.7% and 3.7%, p = 0.32). Freedom from death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (primary clinical end point) was 8.5%, also similar to that found in patients with DES-ISR and BMS-ISR (14.2% and 7.4%, p = 0.09). Results were also similar when only patients treated with DES in each group were compared and remained unchanged after adjusting for potential confounders in baseline characteristics. Time to BVS-ISR did not influence angiographic or clinical results. This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of coronary interventions for patients presenting with BVS-ISR. One-year clinical results in these patients are comparable to those seen in patients with ISR of metallic stents (ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT03167424).

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Korean Expert Panel Report

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) is an innovative device that provides structural support and drug release to prevent early recoil or restenosis, and then degrades into nontoxic compounds to avoid late complications related with metallic drug-eluting stents (DESs). BRS has several putative advantages. However, recent randomized trials and registry studies raised clinical concerns about the safety and efficacy of first generation BRS. In addition, the general guidance for the optimal practice with BRS has not been suggested due to limited long-term clinical data in Korea. To address the safety and efficacy of BRS, we reviewed the clinical evidence of BRS implantation, and suggested the appropriate criteria for patient and lesion selection, scaffold implantation technique, and management.

Occurrence and management of bioresorbable vascular scaffold failure in real-life studies

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) has emerged as a new technology aiming at overcoming some drawbacks of the conventional metallic stent. In spite of the initial promising results, this technology stumbled upon numerous challenges, which were revealed in the real world studies. Thanks to real world trials and registries findings, our knowledge about the BVS has grown over time, thus we have understood on BVS behavior in various settings and formulated better implantation techniques. In this article, we will review the incidence of BVS failure in real world studies, its different etiologies and management strategies.

First experience of drug-coated balloons for treatment of bioresorbable vascular scaffold restenosis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of drug-coated balloons (DCB) for the management of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) restenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a series of 25 BVS restenosis discovered during systematic angiographic follow up of 246 consecutive BVS implantations at our institution, DCB was used as a primary therapeutic tool in 9 patients and 3 different types of DCB were used. Follow-up coronary angiography at 12months after DCB treatment was performed to all the patients. Among the 9 patients treated with DCB, angiographic follow up revealed failure in two patients that experienced type III restenosis (both of them treated with the same type of DCB). Both patients were treated with drug eluting stent implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case series of consecutive patients with BVS restenosis, the use of certain types of DCB is safe and effective in order to maintain vessel patency at mid-term follow up. Despite the small sample size and the study limitations, DCB can provide therefore an alternative treatment option in this setting, avoiding the implantation of further metallic stents in a patient where a different strategy was initially planned.