Mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic everolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: A weighted meta-analysis of seven randomised controlled trials including 5577 patients

Long-term outcomes following bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

INTRODUCTION

The higher scaffold thrombosis rates observed with the first-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) compared to conventional drug-eluting stents were likely due in part to bioresorbable polymers having insufficient radial strength, necessitating larger strut profiles. Meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes from the first-generation Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) showed that this period of excess risk ended at 3 years. Therefore, current attention has been focused on improving early outcomes by increasing the scaffold's tensile strength and reducing strut thickness.

AREAS COVERED

This review summaries the lessons learned from the first-generation BRS. It updates the long-term clinical outcomes of trials evaluating the ABSORB BVS and metallic alloy-based BRS. In addition, it reviews the next-generation BRSs manufactured in Asia.

EXPERT OPINION

Critical areas to improve the performance and safety of biodegradable scaffolds include further development in material science, surface modification, delivery systems, and long-term follow-up studies.

Safety and efficacy of a novel 3D-printed bioresorbable sirolimus-eluting scaffold in a porcine model

Background

The effect of 3D-printed bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) in coronary heart disease has not been clarified.

Aims

We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of 3D-printed BRS with that of metallic sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

Methods

Thirty-two BRS and 32 SES were implanted into 64 porcine coronary arteries. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed at 14, 28, 97, and 189 days post-implantation. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and histopathological analyses were performed at each assessment.

Results

All stents/scaffolds were successfully implanted. All animals survived for the duration of the study. QCA showed the two devices had a similar stent/scaffold-to-artery ratio and acute percent recoil. OCT showed the lumen area (LA) and scaffold/stent area (SA) of the BRS were significantly smaller than those of the SES at 14 and 28 days post-implantation (14-day LA: BRS vs SES 4.52±0.41 mm2 vs 5.69±1.11 mm2; p=0.03; 14-day SA: BRS vs SES 4.99±0.45 mm2 vs 6.11±1.06 mm2; p=0.03; 28-day LA: BRS vs SES 2.93±1.03 mm2 vs 4.82±0.74 mm2; p=0.003; 28-day SA: BRS vs SES 3.86±0.98 mm2 vs 5.75±0.71 mm2; p=0.03). Both the LA and SA of the BRS increased over time and were similar to those of the SES at the 97-day and 189-day assessments. SEM and histomorphological analyses showed no significant between-group differences in endothelialisation at each assessment.

Conclusions

The novel 3D-printed BRS showed safety and efficacy similar to that of SES in a porcine model. The BRS also showed a long-term positive remodelling effect.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus conventional drug-eluting stents across time: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) were designed to reduce the rate of late adverse events observed in conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) by dissolving once they have restored lasting patency.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the safety and efficacy of BVS versus DES in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease across a complete range of randomised controlled trial (RCT) follow-up intervals.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from inception through 5 January 2022 for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes of BVS versus DES. The primary safety outcome was stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST), and the primary efficacy outcome was target lesion failure (TLF: composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (ID-TLR)). Secondary outcomes were patient-oriented composite endpoint (combining all-death, all-MI and all-revascularisation), its individual components and those of TLF. Studies were appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan V.5.4.

RESULTS

11 919 patients were randomised to receive either BVS (n=6438) or DES (n=5481) across 17 trials (differing follow-up intervals from 3 months to 5 years). BVS demonstrated increased risk of ST across all timepoints (peaking at 2 years with risk ratio (RR): 3.47; 95% CI 1.80 to 6.70; p=0.0002). Similarly, they showed increased risk of TLF (peaking at 3 years, RR: 1.35; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.70; p=0.01) resulting from high rates of TVMI and ID-TLR. Though improvements were observed after device dissolution (5-year follow-up), these were non-significant. All other outcomes were statistically equivalent. Applicability to all BVS is limited by 91% of the BVS group receiving Abbott's Absorb.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that current BVS are inferior to contemporary DES throughout the first 5 years at minimum.

Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents on short- and mid-term target lesion outcomes in patients after PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

While current concerns about bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are centered on late or very late scaffold thrombosis, less attention had been paid to short- and mid-term clinical outcomes. This review aimed to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes between BRS and drug-eluting stents (DES).

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared BRS vs. DES was conducted by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases from inception until 19 April 2022 (language limited to English or Chinese). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) within 12 months, defined as a composite of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and cardiac death. The secondary outcomes were in-stent diameter stenosis (DS%) provided by intraluminal imaging.

Results

A total of 13 studies were eligible and were included in this review (N = 9,702 patients). The follow-up duration ranged from 6 months to 1 year. A significantly higher rate of TLF [RR, 1.22, 95% CI (1.03, 1.44)] driven by the higher rate of TVMI [RR, 1.39, 95% CI (1.09, 1.76)] was observed in the BRS group than in the DES group. The risk of TLR and cardiac death was similar between the groups. Also, compared with the DES group, the BRS group had a significantly higher in-stent DS% within 1 year [MD = 5.23, 95%CI (3.43, 7.04); I² = 97%; p < 0.00001].

Conclusion

Bioresorbable scaffolds were associated with an increased risk of target lesion failure within 1 year as compared with DES, driven by the increased rates of target vessel myocardial infarction. Also, the in-stent DS% seemed to be higher with BRS. Therefore, BRS was inferior to DES in terms of target lesion outcomes at short- or mid-term follow-up.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=327966, PROSPERO (CRD42022327966).

Poor past and look forward

.

Implantation techniques (predilatation, sizing, and post-dilatation) and the incidence of scaffold thrombosis and revascularisation in lesions treated with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: insights from the AIDA trial

AIMS

Specific implantation strategies have been proposed for the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) to optimise outcomes. We aimed to analyse whether the occurrence of definite scaffold thrombosis (ScT) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) in Absorb-treated AIDA patients was influenced by scaffold implantation techniques.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Absorb BVS implantation in 1,074 lesions was graded according to definitions of optimal implantation based on predilatation, sizing, and post-dilatation (PSP). Lesion-oriented outcomes (definite ScT and TLR) that occurred during a median follow-up of 707 days were related to the presence or absence of PSP. Of 1,074 lesions, 158 (14.7%) lesions met PSP criteria. The most prevalent reason for not meeting PSP criteria was inadequate sizing: 863 (94.2%). Definite ScT occurred in four of 158 PSP-treated lesions compared with 27 of 916 non PSP-treated lesions, with two-year KM estimates of 3.0% vs. 4.1% and an HR of 1.14 (p=0.811). TLR occurred in eight of 158 PSP-treated lesions compared with 61 of 916 non PSP-treated lesions, with KM estimates of 5.6% vs. 7.1% and an HR of 1.29 (p=0.492).

CONCLUSIONS

In AIDA, lesions that underwent scaffold implantation according to an optimised Absorb BVS implantation technique did not have lower rates of ScT and TLR compared to scaffold-treated lesions that did not meet PSP criteria.