Three-year outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus second-generation drug-eluting stents: Meta-analysis of randomized trials

Mid-term safe and effective profile of the Magmaris scaffold in percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective, single-center study

Introduction

Significant advances have been made in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease over the years. New generations of scaffolds containing novel material and eluting drug have produced one of the most significant advancements in coronary intervention. The newest generation would be Magmaris with a magnesium frame and a sirolimus cover.

Methods

From July 2018 to August 2020, 58 patients treated with Magmaris at the University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City were enrolled in this study.

Results

A total of 60 lesions were stented, 60.3% of which were left anterior descending (LAD) lesions. There was no in-hospital event. Within 1 year after discharge, we noted one myocardial infarction event that required target-lesion revascularization, one stroke event, one non-target-lesion revascularization patient, two target-vessel revascularization patients, and one in-stent thrombosis. Among them, one myocardial infarction occurrence, one non-target-lesion revascularization, and one in-stent thrombosis event were recorded within the first 30 days after discharge.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Magmaris scaffold is a safe and effective option for structural procedures performed with imaging device support, particularly intravascular ultrasound.

Stent Selection for Primary Angioplasty and Outcomes in the Era of Potent Antiplatelets. Data from the Multicenter Randomized Prague-18 Trial

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the recommended stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to determine why interventional cardiologists used non-DES and how it influenced patient prognoses. The efficacy and safety outcomes of the different stents were also compared in patients treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor. Of the PRAGUE-18 study patients, 749 (67.4%) were treated with DES, 296 (26.6%) with bare-metal stents (BMS), and 66 (5.9%) with bioabsorbable vascular scaffold/stents (BVS) between 2013 and 2016. Cardiogenic shock at presentation, left main coronary artery disease, especially as the culprit lesion, and right coronary artery stenosis were the reasons for selecting a BMS. The incidence of the primary composite net-clinical endpoint (EP) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, or revascularization) at seven days was 2.5% vs. 6.3% and 3.0% in the DES, vs. with BMS and BVS, respectively (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.419–5.15, p = 0.002 for BMS vs. DES and 1.25 (0.29–5.39) p = 0.76 for BVS vs. DES). Patients with BMS were at higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.01–4.76; for BMS vs. DES, p = 0.045) and at one year (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.19–3.69; p = 0.01); they also had a higher composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, and stroke (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.0–2.74; p = 0.047) at one year. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of primary EP whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. In conclusion, patients with the highest initial risk profile were preferably treated with BMS over BVS. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.