Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold During ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in primary percutaneous coronary intervention of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of a metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) is the standard treatment for patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Implantation of a bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) during STEMI represents a novel strategy without intravascular metal.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate 12-month healing response in an STEMI population after implantation of either the Absorb BRS or Xience DES (Abbott Vascular, USA).

METHODS

The present trial was a prospective, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, noninferiority study with planned inclusion of 120 patients with STEMI. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with Absorb BRS or Xience DES. Implantation result and healing response were evaluated by angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline and 12-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was minimum flow area (MFA) assessed at 12 months. Coronary stent healing index (CSHI) was calculated from OCT images.

RESULTS

Out of 66 included patients, 58 had follow-up OCT after 12 months, and 49 entered matched analysis. One death occurred in each group; none were stent-related. MFA was 5.13 ± 1.70 mm2 (95% CI, 4.44-5.82) in the BRS group compared with 6.30 ± 2.49 mm2 (95% CI, 5.22-7.37) (P = 0.06) in the DES group. Noninferiority could not be evaluated. CSHI for both groups had a median score of 3.

CONCLUSION

The DES group performed numerically better in primary and secondary endpoints, but the CSHI showed good stent healing in both groups.

The resorbable magnesium scaffold Magmaris in acute coronary syndrome: An appraisal of evidence and user group guidance

Bioresorbable scaffolds provide transient vessel support without the long-term limitations of permanent metallic drug-eluting stents. The sirolimus-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold Magmaris is the only CE-marked metallic bioresorbable scaffold and provides short-term lumen support before being completely bioresorbed. To date, clinical trial results have demonstrated low adverse event rates in patients with simple coronary lesions. Seven European centers with large experience in Magmaris implantation, combined efforts in an informal collaboration to evaluate and appraise clinical data currently available regarding the performance of Magmaris in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes, and to supply user-advice on patient selection and optimal implantation practice.

Everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Two-year results from the German-Austrian ABSORB registry

OBJECTIVES

To identify potential differences in 2-year outcome between patients who underwent coronary revascularization using bioresorbable vascular scafffolds (BVS) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

BACKGROUND

Data from randomized trials suggest a significantly higher event rate following coronary revascularization using everolimus-eluting BVS as compared to new generation drug eluting stents. Whether particular patient subgroups are at increased risk for scaffold thrombosis and target lesion failure (TLF) has not clearly been demonstrated.

METHODS

German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy is a prospective all-comer multi-center observational study of consecutive patients who were considered for coronary revascularization with BVS. We compared 1499 patients with stable CAD to 1594 patients with ACS. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), TLF, and scaffold thrombosis.

RESULTS

While single vessel disease was more prevalent in ACS (46% vs. 37%, p < 0.0001), lesion complexity (B2/C stenosis 37% vs. 36%, bifurcation 2.4% vs. 3.4%, p < 0.05), number of implanted scaffolds/patient (1.34 vs. 1.43), scaffold length (18 vs. 18 mm) or the rate of high pressure postdilatation (68% vs. 70%) did not differ between ACS and stable CAD. Two-year MACE rates were 11.6% in ACS and 11.4% in stable CAD, TLF occurred in 7.0% versus 7.4% and target vessel revascularization in 8.8 versus 10.2% (n.s. for all). Definite scaffold thrombosis rates were not significantly different (ACS 1.9% vs. stable CAD 2.1%).

CONCLUSION

Real-world 2-year event rates after coronary revascularization with BVS are not significantly different between individuals with ACS as compared to stable CAD.

Mid-term outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds vs second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), which have the characteristics of scaffold absorption and vascular function recovery, are the latest innovation in the treatment of coronary artery disease. This new concept has become a hot topic in the field of interventional cardiology. Data regarding mid-term clinical outcomes of BVS in acute coronary syndromes are currently scarce. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare mid-term outcome data for BVS and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and relevant web sites for studies with a follow-up of ≥ 1 years that studied percutaneous coronary interventions with BVS vs second-generation DES in acute coronary syndromes. A meta-analysis was performed with the software RevMan following the standards of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0.

RESULTS

Five studies, 2 randomized controlled trials, and 3 observational studies, with a total of 1758 patients (BVS n = 917; DES n = 841) and a median follow-up duration of 24 months, were included. BVS, when compared with DES, resulted in higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.12-3.64; P = .02) and stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST/ScT) (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.13-4.89, P = .02). When TLR due to device thrombosis were excluded, the difference in risk estimates between the 2 groups was no longer significant (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.73-3.82, P = .22). The risk for all-cause death (OR = 1.32 95% CI: 0.61-2.88, P = .48), cardiac death (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.58-2.86 P = .52), target vessel myocardial infarction (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 0.86-2.61, P = .15), and target lesion failure (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.76-2.35, P = .31) did not differ between BVS and DES groups.

CONCLUSION

At mid-term follow-up, BVS had a higher risk of TLR and ST/ScT than the second-generation DES in patients with acute coronary syndromes. ST/ScT was the key factor indicating the decreased safety and effectiveness of BVS relative to DES.

Magmaris resorbable magnesium scaffold for the treatment of coronary heart disease: overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: Bioresorbable scaffold technology provides transient vessel support with drug-delivery capability without the long-term limitations of the permanent metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). The technology has the potential to overcome many of the safety concerns associated with metallic DES, such as hypersensitivity reactions, late stent thrombosis and progression of atherosclerosis within the stented segment (i.e. neoatherosclerosis). Areas covered: The sirolimus-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold Magmaris is the only metallic CE-marked resorbable scaffold currently available. This magnesium scaffold is designed for providing a short-term lumen support (up to 3 months) before being completely bioresorbed, eliminating the permanent caging typical of the metallic DES. This review will focus on the device development and characteristics, currently available clinical efficacy and safety data, and potential future perspectives. Expert opinion: The first clinical studies testing this device in a small number of patients have shown promising results with good clinical and safety outcomes up to 3 years' clinical follow-up, supporting the use of Magmaris in simple coronary artery disease.

Predictors of bioresorbable scaffold failure in STEMI patients at 3 years follow-up

BACKGROUND

Little data are available on the long-term outcomes of bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study is to investigate three-years outcomes and predictors of BRS failure in patients presenting with STEMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two prospective, single-arm registries were pooled. Incidence and predictors of clinical outcome were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. From May-2012 to January-2015, 183 STEMI patients (58 ± 13 years, 77% males, 29% diabetics) who received a total of 256 BRS (1.4 ± 0.8 per patient) were included. 248 patients (65 ± 11 years, 74% males, 27% diabetics) treated for stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) served as control. 3-years follow-up was available in 386 (90%) patients. Device-oriented composite endpoint and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) rates were similar in the two groups (STEMI: 11.5% vs SCAD: 12.9%, P = 0.84; STEMI: 3.6% vs SCAD: 3.3%, P = 0.90). While early ScT was more frequent in SCAD patients, late/very late ScT was a feature of STEMI. While in STEMI patients the incidence of ScT was higher in vessels with RVD > 3.5 mm, a RVD < 2.5 mm was a predictor of events in stable patients. Similarly, BRS undersizing predicted events in STEMI patients, while oversizing was a predictor in stable ones. Finally, the incidence of ScT was reduced in both STEMI and stable patients (from 6.3% to 0% and from 5.80% to 0.9%) when an optimized implantation technique was used.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of events for three years follow-up was similar in STEMI and SCAD patients, although different timing and features underlie ScT in the two groups.

Clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold to treat all-comer patients. Are patients with acute coronary syndrome better candidates for bioresorbable vascular scaffold?

BACKGROUND

Scaffold thromboses (ST) and adverse events and have been associated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) at long-term, but their mechanism remains unclear. We sought to evaluate patient and lesion characteristics associated with mid- to long-term outcomes in patients treated with BVS.

METHODS

This is an observational single-center, single-arm, retrospective study evaluating the performance of BVS in an all-comer population, including complex lesions (chronic total occlusions, long lesions), small vessels, and acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

RESULTS

From May 2013 to June 2015, we included 482 patients (580 lesions) that were treated with BVS implantation including 71.2% treated for ACS in the present analysis. Mean follow-up period was 816.2 ± 242.6 days. The primary endpoint was device oriented cardiac events (DOCE), defined as a composite of target-lesion revascularization (TLR), ST, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and cardiac death. Using Kaplan-Meier methods, the DOCE and ST rates at 36 months were 9.4% and 2.3%, respectively. No ST occurred between 2 and 3 years and ST occurred after 3 years, in one patient. Using multivariate analysis, ACS was the only significant predictor of lower rates of DOCE (p = 0.04, HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large all-comers real-world cohort, lesions treated with BVS had non-negligible rates of DOCE and ST, in line with previous published randomized trials. The occurrence of very late event was very low after 24 months. ACS patients had lower rates of DOCE.

Long-term outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold in ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) implantation in selected patients with stable angina has been demonstrated feasible and safe. However, limited data are currently available on long-term outcomes after BVS implantation for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Therefore, we sought to assess the safety, efficacy and long-term results of BVS implantation in STEMI patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all STEMI patients treated with the Absorb^® BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) or conventional drug eluting stent (DES) between 1 April 2013 and 30 March 2014. Primary outcomes were procedural success, device thrombosis and device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization. The study included 54 BVS patients and 121 DES patients.

RESULTS

Patients were slightly younger in the BVS group (60 vs. 63 years old, p = .03). Other baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Procedural success was achieved in all patients. Median follow-up was 901 days and 849 days for BVS and DES patients, respectively (p = .01). The cumulative incidence of DOCE was not significantly different between the BVS and DES groups (7.5% vs. 9.1%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-2.2], p = NS). Rate of probable/definite device thrombosis were not statistically different between both groups (3.7% vs. 3.3%, p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this single-centre retrospective study, one of the first assessing long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in STEMI, seems reassuring with similar long-term results as compared with patients treated with conventional DES.