Radial strength and expansion of scaffold struts remain a concern when considering a PCI with bioresorbable vascular scaffold

Hybrid Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Combination With Drug-Eluting Stents or Drug-Coated Balloons for Complex Coronary Lesions

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have become an attractive option in the percutaneous coronary intervention field due to the potential advantages associated with the complete resorption process that occurs within a few years. However, current-generation BVS have several limitations including thicker struts, reduced radial strength, and limited expansion capability when compared with drug-eluting stents (DES). As a result, complex coronary disease often contains BVS-inappropriate/unfavorable segments. This does not necessarily mean that BVS use must be completely avoided, and minimizing the length of permanent metallic caging may still be advantageous. Operators should fully understand the limitations of current BVS, and when to consider a hybrid strategy of BVS in combination with DES or drug-coated balloons.

In vitro performance investigation of bioresorbable scaffolds - Standard tests for vascular stents and beyond

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Biodegradable polymers are the main materials for coronary scaffolds. Magnesium has been investigated as a potential alternative and was successfully tested in human clinical trials. However, it is still challenging to achieve mechanical parameters comparative to permanent bare metal (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES). As such, in vitro tests are required to assess mechanical parameters correlated to the safety and efficacy of the device.

METHODS/MATERIALS

In vitro bench tests evaluate scaffold profiles, length, deliverability, expansion behavior including acute elastic and time-dependent recoil, bending stiffness and radial strength. The Absorb GT1 (Abbott Vascular, Temecula, CA), DESolve (Elixir Medical Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA) and the Magmaris (BIOTRONIK AG, Bülach, Switzerland) that was previously tested in the BIOSOLVE II study, were tested.

RESULTS

Crimped profiles were 1.38±0.01mm (Absorb GT1), 1.39±0.01mm (DESolve) and 1.44±0.00mm (Magmaris) enabling 6F compatibility. Trackability was measured depending on stiffness and force transmission (pushability). Acute elastic recoil was measured at free expansion and within a mock vessel, respectively, yielding results of 5.86±0.76 and 5.22±0.38% (Absorb), 7.85±3.45 and 9.42±0.21% (DESolve) and 5.57±0.72 and 4.94±0.31% (Magmaris). Time-dependent recoil (after 1h) was observed for the Absorb and DESolve scaffolds but not for the Magmaris. The self-correcting wall apposition behavior of the DESolve did not prevent time-dependent recoil under vessel loading.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the suggested test methods allow assessment of technical feasibility based on objective mechanical data and highlight the main differences between polymeric and metallic bioresorbable scaffolds.