Mid- to long-term outcome of patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: Data of the BVS registry Göttingen predominantly from ACS patients

Lesion impacts on long-term outcomes in patients implanted with bioresorbable vascular scaffold

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) had been implanted to several kinds of complex coronary lesions in real-world practice. We tested if long-term outcomes of BVS for complex lesions would be worse than that for relatively simple lesions.

METHODS

We analyzed 457 patients (59 ± 12 years, 87% male) with 714 BVS implanted for their 529 lesions and median follow-up of 32.7 (26.8-39.3) months. Complex group (N = 284) was defined as those with BVS for acute coronary syndrome, chronic total occlusion, bifurcation/ostial lesions, instent restenosis/hybrid with metallic stents, diffuse lesions (overlapped by 2 BVS with each ≧ 18 mm), venous graft/left main lesions, or lesions after rotablation. We compared their outcomes with the remaining 173 patients as non-complex group.

RESULTS

The complex group had more chronic kidney disease (7% vs. 2%), multivessel disease (78% vs. 65%), use of intravascular imaging (40% vs. 23%), and more BVS (1.8 ± 0.9 vs. 1.1 ± 0.3) with longer total lengths (47 ± 22 vs. 29 ± 8 mm) implanted than non-complex group (all p < 0.05). However, the long-term target lesion revascularization (TLR) or target lesion failure (TLF) was similar (log rank p > 0.05) between the two groups. Multivariate Cox regression analyses showed BVS for ACC/AHA type C lesions was independently associated with higher risks of TLR (hazard ratio: 2.7, 95% CI = 1.1-6.6) and TLF (hazard ratio: 2.6, 95% CI = 1.1-6.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable outcomes were found between BVS for complex and non-complex lesion category. However, higher risks of TLR and TLF for type C lesions still suggested the prognostic impact of lesion complexity on long-term outcomes of BVS.

Comparison of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION

Despite the withdrawal of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) from clinical use, continuous observation of BVS-treated patients is necessary. In the vast majority of clinical trials, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were excluded from the analysis.

AIM

To compare the early and long-term outcomes of the BVS with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in patients with STEMI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated with BVS or EES in our center were screened. For analysis, only patients with STEMI were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the target lesion failure at 12 and 24 months. The secondary endpoints encompass occurrence of the patient-oriented cardiovascular endpoint (PoCE), stent thrombosis (ST), device, and procedural success.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2016, 2,137 patients were hospitalized for STEMI. Of these, 123 patients received the BVS (163 scaffolds; 151 lesions), whereas in 141 patients the EES (203 stents; 176 lesions) was implanted. The median follow-up was 931 ±514 days. The primary endpoint at 12 months occurred in 9.7% in the BVS group and in 8.5% in the EES group (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-7.56; p = 0.076). At 24 months the incidence of the primary endpoint was 15.2% in the BVS group and 14.9% in the EES group (HR = 2.46; 95% CI: 0.85-7.07; p = 0.095). The rates of PoCE, ST, device, and procedural success were also comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

STEMI patients treated with the BVS showed statistically similar rates of primary and secondary endpoints compared with the EES.

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.