Long-term clinical results of bioresorbable absorb scaffolds using the PSP-technique in patients with and without diabetes

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.

Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study

Background

In this prespecified AIDA‐trial sub‐study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3‐year follow‐up.

Methods and results

All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin‐treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively).

Conclusions

In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3‐year follow‐up.

12-month clinical outcomes after Magmaris percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-world cohort of patients: Results from the CardioHULA registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical evidence on the bioresorbable magnesium scaffolds (BRS) is still scarce. We aim to assess clinical outcomes after magnesium BRS deployment in a real-world cohort of patients.

METHODS

We included in a non-randomized, prospective, single-center registry of all patients treated with at least one Magmaris device in our cath lab. Pre and postdilatation with optical coherence tomography guidance, as part of the 4Ps strategy, were performed in all cases. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months.

RESULTS

42 patients (with 42 lesions) underwent Magmaris percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between June 2016 to April 2017. PCI was performed in an acute setting in 54.76% cases; the most treated vessel was the anterior descending artery, with a mean diameter of 3.30±0.25 mm. All lesions underwent predilatation and postdilatation, with a mean postdilatation pressure of 19.2 atm. Procedural success rate was 100%. TLF rate was 4.7% at 12 months. None of our patients died or suffered myocardial infarction. Two patients (4.7%) underwent clinically-driven target lesion revascularization due to in-stent restenosis. No stent thrombosis was detected.

CONCLUSION

12-months clinical outcomes after Magmaris PCI demonstrate its safety and feasibility when deployed in a 4Ps strategy.

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds-Dead End or Still a Rough Diamond?

Percutaneous coronary interventions with stent-based restorations of vessel patency have become the gold standard in the treatment of acute coronary states. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been designed to combine the efficiency of drug-eluting stents (DES) at the time of implantation and the advantages of a lack of foreign body afterwards. Complete resolution of the scaffold was intended to enable the restoration of vasomotor function and reduce the risk of device thrombosis. While early reports demonstrated superiority of BVS over DES, larger-scale application and longer observation exposed major concerns about their use, including lower radial strength and higher risk of thrombosis resulting in higher rate of major adverse cardiac events. Further focus on procedural details and research on the second generation of BVS with novel properties did not allow to unequivocally challenge position of DES. Nevertheless, BVS still have a chance to present superiority in distinctive indications. This review presents an outlook on the available first and second generation BVS and a summary of results of clinical trials on their use. It discusses explanations for unfavorable outcomes, proposed enhancement techniques and a potential niche for the use of BVS.

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.

Longer Inflation Duration and Predilation-Sizing-Postdilation Improve Bioresorbable Scaffold Outcomes in a Long-term All-Comers Canadian Registry

BACKGROUND

Real-world long-term safety and efficacy of the ABSORB (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) bioresorbable vascular scaffold has not been well characterized in the literature, particularly in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Herein, we report outcomes up to 4 years in such a high-risk cohort, with identification of parameters associated with better outcomes.

METHODS

ReABSORB is a Canadian dual-centre, prospective, nonrandomized, all-comers registry consisting of 125 consecutively enrolled nontrial patients between October 2012 and December 2016. Angiographic and clinical follow-up is now available up to 4 years.

RESULTS

Average age was 59 ± 11 years and 69% were male. Most (70.4%) presented with ACS and the median available follow-up was 1330 days (interquartile range, 1035-1483). Treated lesions (n = 163) were type A in 23%, type B (1 or 2) in 64%, and type C in 13%. Procedural success and device success were 98.2% and 98.8%, respectively. Using Kaplan-Meier methods, major adverse cardiac event-free survival (EFS) up to 4 years of clinical follow-up was 90.7% overall. However, use of a predilation-sizing-postdilation (PSP) technique was associated with an EFS rate of 95.8% vs 74.0% without PSP (P = 0.001). No significant differences in major adverse cardiac EFS rates were found between patients with or without ACS (92.7% vs 86.0%, respectively, P = 0.239). Use of PSP as well as inflation time ≥ 60 seconds were independent predictors of EFS at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective, real-world registry with mostly ACS patients, use of the recommended PSP implantation technique and longer inflations times were associated with significantly higher EFS.

Three-years outcomes of diabetic patients treated with coronary bioresorbable scaffolds

Background

Diabetes is among the strongest predictors of outcome after coronary artery stenting and the incidence of negative outcomes is still high in this specific group. Data of long-term outcomes comparing diabetic patients with non-diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds are still incomplete. This work evaluates the long-term outcomes after implantation of a coronary bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetics.

Methods

Patients who received at least one Absorb BRS in the time of May 2012 to December 2014 were enrolled into this single-center registry. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed.

Results

Six hundred fifty seven patients including 138 patients (21%, mean age 65 ± 11, 78% male) with diabetes were enrolled.

Patients in the diabetic group were significantly older, were more likely to suffer from hypertension and hyperlipidemia and had more often a prior stroke or TIA as well as a reduced renal function (all P < 0.05). The initial stenosis was less severe in the diabetic group (74.8% vs. 79.6%, P = 0.036), but the residual stenosis after BRS implantation exceeded that of the control group (16.7% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.006).

History of diabetes had no impact on the incidence of events within one year after BRS implantation. Beyond 1 year, diabetic patients had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death (6.9 vs. 1.4%, HR:5.37 [1.33–21.71], P = 0.001), scaffold restenosis (17.6 vs. 7.8%, HR:3.56 [1.40–9.05], P < 0.0001) and target lesion revascularization (P = 0.016). These results were confirmed in the propensity score analysis.

In both diabetics and non-diabetics, there was a strong association (HR:18.6 [4.7–73.3]) between the risk of restenosis and the technique used at implantation; in contrast, the impact of vessel size was more manifest in non-diabetics than in diabetic patients, and an increased risk of restenosis was demonstrated for both large and small vessels.

Conclusion

As for metal stents, beyond one year after implantation, diabetes was associated with an increased incidence of scaffold restenosis and related outcomes. This negative impact of diabetes was reset when an optimal implantation technique was used.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-018-0811-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mid-term outcomes of the Absorb BVS versus second-generation DES: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) were introduced to overcome some of the limitations of drug-eluting stent (DES) for PCI. Data regarding the clinical outcomes of the BVS versus DES beyond 2 years are emerging.

Objective

To study mid-term outcomes.

Methods

We searched online databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL), several websites, meeting presentations and scientific session abstracts until August 8^th, 2017 for studies comparing Absorb BVS with second-generation DES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite/probable device thrombosis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using a random effects model.

Results

Ten studies, seven randomized controlled trials and three propensity-matched observational studies, with a total of 7320 patients (BVS n = 4007; DES n = 3313) and a median follow-up duration of 30.5 months, were included. Risk of TLF was increased for BVS-treated patients (OR 1.34 [95% CI: 1.12–1.60], p = 0.001, I² = 0%). This was also the case for all myocardial infarction (1.58 [95% CI: 1.27–1.96], p<0.001, I² = 0%), TLR (1.48 [95% CI: 1.19–1.85], p<0.001, I² = 0%) and definite/probable device thrombosis (of 2.82 (95% CI: 1.86–3.89], p<0.001 and I² = 40.3%). This did not result in a difference in all-cause mortality (0.78 [95% CI: 0.58–1.04], p = 0.09, I² = 0%). OR for very late (>1 year) device thrombosis was 6.10 [95% CI: 1.40–26.65], p = 0.02).

Conclusion

At mid-term follow-up, BVS was associated with an increased risk of TLF, MI, TLR and definite/probable device thrombosis, but this did not result in an increased risk of all-cause mortality.