An observational study of clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds comparing the procedural use of optical coherence tomography against angiography alone

Clinical outcomes of optical coherence tomography versus conventional angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Performing optical coherence tomography (OCT) as a guide for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to conventional coronary angiography has been the subject of the recent cohorts and randomized trials. However, clear evidence demonstrating its superiority is still controversial.

METHODS

We performed a thorough search in digital databases to find the relevant observational studies and randomized trials comparing OCT and angiography in patients undergoing PCI. A random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken comparing clinical outcomes to generate an odds ratio (OR) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyzes were performed based on study design, underlying cardiac condition, and complexity of cases.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies (10 RCTs and 11 observational studies) with 11,163 participants (5319: OCT and 5844: angiography group) were included for quantitative synthesis. Performing OCT was associated with lower odds of all-cause (OR (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.48; 0.67)) and cardiac mortality (OR (95% CI) = 0.47 (0.35; 0.63)), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.48; 0.76)), myocardial infarction (OR (95% CI) = 0.79 (0.64; 0.97)), and stent thrombosis (OR (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.39; 0.96)) compared to the angiography group. Other clinical outcomes were similar between the studied groups. The outperformance of OCT was more evident in observational studies and the ones with PCI on complex lesions.

CONCLUSION

Performing OCT prior to PCI is associated with better clinical outcomes compared to angiography alone based on contemporary evidence. Future well-designed randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.

Factors associated with long-term major adverse cardiac events of coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffold

The long-term clinical outcomes after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in a real-world cohort were not well described. To identify factors associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) on long-term follow-up after implantation of BVS in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This was an observational study based on a hospital registry of percutaneous coronary intervention. Participants were consecutive patients who underwent PCI and implanted with at least one everolimus-eluting BVS (Absorb^®) in a single center between 2014 and 2017. Among the 170 cases analyzed (mean age 60.4 ± 10.7), a total of 203 Absorb BVS were implanted. MACE developed in 33 (19.4%) patients over a median follow-up period of 61 months, including 9 (5.3%) deaths, 13 (7.6%) non-fatal myocardial infarction and 19 (11.2%) ischemia driven target vessel revascularization. Definite or probable stent thrombosis developed in 4 (2.4%) patients. In crude analysis, history of smoking and initial presentation of non-ST elevation-acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) were predictors of long-term MACE. In adjusted analysis, presentation with NSTE-ACS was an independent predictor of long-term MACE [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.52; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.50 to 13.6, P = 0.007]. Among patients receiving implantation of ABSORB BVS, presentation with NSTE-ACS was an independent predictor of MACE after a median follow-up period of 61 months. Future research is needed to confirm these findings and to determine the long-term safety of BVS in patients with NSTE-ACS.

Routine use of optical coherence tomography in bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: insights on technique optimization and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Data from prior studies have shown increased risk of adverse outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with drug-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to study the long-term outcomes with routine use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for optimization of BVS implantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical, procedural, and outcome data were collected for all patients who received ABSORB BVS between February 2014 and March 2016 in our tertiary center (n=86). Preimplantation and postimplantation OCT was performed in all cases. Outcomes of interest included acute device success and long-term clinical outcomes including cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and scaffold thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients were included (106 lesions, 115 BVS implanted). Mean age was 59.5±10.9 years, with 66% men. Mean lesion length was 25.2±15.6 mm and mean reference vessel diameter was 3.42±0.45 mm. Type B2/C accounted for 40% of the lesions. All scaffold implantations followed the predilation, proper sizing, and postdilation strategy. Of the 115 scaffolds analyzed, 11 (9.5%) required further intervention based on prespecified OCT endpoints. On multivariate regression analysis, complex coronary lesion (type B2/C) was the single independent predictor of OCT use in scaffold optimization (odds ratio=6.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-7.8, P=0.02). At a mean follow-up duration of 31±7.1 months, no cases of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, or scaffold thrombosis were reported.

CONCLUSION

Operators may consider OCT use for optimization of BVS implantation particularly in patients with complex coronary lesions.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular optical coherence tomography-guided and angiography-guided stent implantation: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was designed to evaluate the overall efficacy of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided implantation versus angiography-guided for percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

The following electronic databases, such as CENTRAL, PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews to investigate OCT-guided and angiography-guided implantation. We measured the following 7 parameters in each patient: stent thrombosis, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), all-cause death.

RESULTS

In all, 11 studies (6 RCTs and 5 observational studies) involving 4026 subjects were included, with 1903 receiving intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and 2123 using angiography-guided DES implantation. With regard to MACE, MT, TLR, TVR, stent thrombosis and all-cause death, the group of OCT-guided implantation had no significant statistical association with remarkably improved clinical outcomes. However, its effect on cardiovascular death has a significant statistical difference in angiography-guided implantation group.

CONCLUSION

In the present pool analysis, OCT-guided DES implantation showed a tendency toward improved clinical outcomes compared to angiography-guided implantation. More eligible randomized clinical trials are warranted to verify the findings and to determine the beneficial effect of OCT-guidance for patients.