The duration of balloon inflation affects the luminal diameter of coronary segments after bioresorbable vascular scaffolds deployment

Strategies to Minimize Access Site-related Complications in Patients Undergoing Transfemoral Artery Procedures with Large-bore Devices

Large bore accesses refer to accesses with a diameter of 10 French or greater and are necessary for various medical devices, including those used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, endovascular aneurysm repair stent-grafts, and percutaneous mechanical support devices. Notably, the utilization of these devices via femoral access is steadily increasing due to advancements in technology and implantation techniques, which are expanding the pool of patients suitable for percutaneous procedures. However, procedures involving large bore devices carry a high risk of bleeding and vascular complications (VCs), impacting both morbidity and long-term mortality. In this review article, we will first discuss the incidence, determinants, and prognostic impact of VCs in patients undergoing large bore access procedures. Subsequently, we will explore the strategies developed in recent years to minimize VCs, including techniques for optimizing vascular puncture through femoral cannulation, such as the use of echo-guided access cannulation and fluoroscopic guidance. Additionally, we will evaluate existing vascular closure devices designed for large bore devices. Finally, we will consider new pharmacological strategies aimed at reducing the risk of periprocedural access-related bleeding.

Stent Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From Bare-Metal to the Last Generation of Drug-Eluting Stents

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1986, different types of coronary stents have been developed and become available for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but harmful complication after percutaneous coronary implantation, with a high occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and risk of mortality. Among several procedural and clinical predictors, the type of coronary stent is a strong determinant of ST. This article reviews the available evidence on the most used coronary stent types in the modern era and the related risk of ST.

Non-invasive myocardial work is reduced during transient acute coronary occlusion

Background

During ischemia a close relationship exists between sub-endocardial blood flow and myocardial function. Strain parameters can capture an impairment of regional longitudinal function but are load dependent. Recently, a novel non-invasive method to calculate Myocardial Work (MW) showed a strong correlation with invasive work measurements.

Our aim was to investigate the ability of non-invasive MW indices to identify the ischaemic risk area during transient acute coronary occlusion (TACO).

Methods and results

The study population comprises 50 individuals with critical coronary stenosis (CCS). Echocardiography recordings were obtained before coronary angiography, during TACO and after revascularization to measure global longitudinal strain (GLS), Myocardial Work Index (MWI), Myocardial Constructive Work (MCW), Myocardial Wasted work (MWW), Myocardial work efficiency (MWE).

Compared to baseline, we found a significant reduction of GLS (p = 0.005), MWI, MCW and MWE (p<0.001) during TACO.

Conclusions

The non-invasive measurement of MW parameters is a sensitive and early marker of myocardial ischemia during TACO.

Stent Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From Bare-Metal to the Last Generation of Drug-Eluting Stents

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1986, different types of coronary stents have been developed and become available for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but harmful complication after percutaneous coronary implantation, with a high occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and risk of mortality. Among several procedural and clinical predictors, the type of coronary stent is a strong determinant of ST. This article reviews the available evidence on the most used coronary stent types in the modern era and the related risk of ST.

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

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) completely resorb within 3 years after placement into the coronary artery. The safety and effectiveness of bioabsorbable scaffolds are of critical importance during this 3-year period.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of BVS and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 3 years after implantation.

METHODS

Published randomized trials comparing BVS to second-generation DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were identified within PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and relevant Web sites with publication dates through June 2019. The primary efficacy endpoint was target lesion failure. The primary safety endpoint was definite/probable stent/scaffold thrombosis. Secondary outcomes were cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and a patient-oriented composite end point.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials, with a total of 5,412 patients (BVS n = 3,177; DES n = 2,235), were included. At 3 years, BVS was associated with higher rates of target lesion failure (OR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.10-1.60, P = 0.003) and definite/probable stent/scaffold thrombosis (OR = 3.75, 95% CI: 2.22-6.35, P < .00001)compared with DES. The incidence of target vessel myocardial infarction (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.30-2.17, P < .0001), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.14-1.86, P = .003), and the patient-oriented composite end point(OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04-1.39, P = .01) were higher for those treated with BVS compared with DES. However, there was no significant difference in risk of cardiac death (OR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.61-1.45, P = .79) between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At the 3-year follow-up, BVS was inferior to second-generation DES in both safety and efficacy.

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.

Hybrid Coronary Percutaneous Treatment with Metallic Stents and Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds: 2-years Results from the GABI-R Registry

The limitations of the first-generation everolimus-eluting coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been demonstrated in several randomized controlled trials. Little data are available regarding the outcomes of patients receiving hybrid stenting with both BVS and drug-eluting stents (DES). Of 3144 patients prospectively enrolled in the GABI-Registry, 435 (age 62 ± 10, 19% females, 970 lesions) received at least one BVS and one metal stent (hybrid group). These patients were compared with the remaining 2709 (3308 lesions) who received BVS-only. Patients who had received hybrid stenting had more frequently a history of cardiovascular disease and revascularization (p < 0.05), had less frequently single-vessel disease (p < 0.0001), and the lesions treated in these patients were longer (p < 0.0001) and more frequently complex. Accordingly, the incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction (p < 0.05) and that of cardiovascular death, target vessel and lesion failure and any PCI at 24 months was lower in the BVS-only group (all p < 0.05). The 24-months rate of definite and probable scaffold thrombosis was 2.7% in the hybrid group and 2.8% in the BVS-only group, that of stent thrombosis in the hybrid group was 1.86%. In multivariable analysis, only implantation in bifurcation lesions emerged as a predictor of device thrombosis, while the device type was not associated with this outcome (p = 0.21). The higher incidence of events in patients receiving hybrid stenting reflects the higher complexity of the lesions in these patients; in patients treated with a hybrid strategy, the type of device implanted did not influence patients´ outcomes.

Impact of Absorb bioresorbable scaffold implantation technique on post-procedural quantitative coronary angiographic endpoints in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a sub-analysis of the BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study

AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) implantation technique on post-procedural quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) parameters in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed 442 STEMI patients who underwent BRS implantation in the BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study. Optimal BRS implantation was assessed using the PSP score, developed and validated in the GHOST-EU registry. We analysed post-implantation QCA parameters, including minimum lumen diameter (MLD) and maximum footprint, in patients with and without optimal BRS implantation, coded as maximum PSP score. Patients with optimal BRS implantation had higher post-procedural MLD and lower maximum footprint than those without. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that optimal BRS implantation was an independent predictor of high post-procedural MLD, defined as ≥2.4 mm for 2.5 or 3.0 mm BRS and ≥2.8 mm for 3.5 mm BRS. Thrombectomy before optimal BRS implantation showed a trend towards higher post-procedural MLD and lower maximum footprint. There was no relationship between optimal BRS implantation and device-oriented composite events at one year.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal BRS implantation, as assessed by PSP score, was associated with better post-procedural QCA parameters in STEMI. Thrombectomy before optimal BRS implantation might improve angiographic results in STEMI. Long-term follow-up is needed to analyse the relationship between QCA parameters and clinical outcomes after BRS implantation in STEMI patients.

Predictors of bioresorbable scaffold failure in STEMI patients at 3 years follow-up

BACKGROUND

Little data are available on the long-term outcomes of bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study is to investigate three-years outcomes and predictors of BRS failure in patients presenting with STEMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two prospective, single-arm registries were pooled. Incidence and predictors of clinical outcome were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. From May-2012 to January-2015, 183 STEMI patients (58 ± 13 years, 77% males, 29% diabetics) who received a total of 256 BRS (1.4 ± 0.8 per patient) were included. 248 patients (65 ± 11 years, 74% males, 27% diabetics) treated for stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) served as control. 3-years follow-up was available in 386 (90%) patients. Device-oriented composite endpoint and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) rates were similar in the two groups (STEMI: 11.5% vs SCAD: 12.9%, P = 0.84; STEMI: 3.6% vs SCAD: 3.3%, P = 0.90). While early ScT was more frequent in SCAD patients, late/very late ScT was a feature of STEMI. While in STEMI patients the incidence of ScT was higher in vessels with RVD > 3.5 mm, a RVD < 2.5 mm was a predictor of events in stable patients. Similarly, BRS undersizing predicted events in STEMI patients, while oversizing was a predictor in stable ones. Finally, the incidence of ScT was reduced in both STEMI and stable patients (from 6.3% to 0% and from 5.80% to 0.9%) when an optimized implantation technique was used.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of events for three years follow-up was similar in STEMI and SCAD patients, although different timing and features underlie ScT in the two groups.

Clinical results of bioresorbable drug-eluting scaffolds in short and long coronary artery lesions using the PSP technique

BACKGROUND

Data on bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for the treatment of long lesions are limited. We studied the use of BVS-Absorb in routine clinical practice and compared the outcome of long lesions with short lesions. Implantation of drug-eluting scaffolds without PSP-technique (predilation, proper sizing and postdilation) is associated with an increased thrombotic risk. We compared the long-term outcome up to 36 months of patients with short (< 20 mm) and long (≥20 mm) coronary artery lesions after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) via PSP-technique.

METHODS

Three hundred twenty-six patients with 424 lesions were enrolled in this prospective study and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with the Absorb BVS. Clinical follow-up was scheduled after 12, 24 and 36 months. In all lesions the PSP-technique was used. The device oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) was defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) not clearly related to a non-target vessel and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier estimates for DOCE after 12 months were 2.63% for short lesions and 8.09% for long lesions (p = 0.0131), 5.51% vs. 11.35% (p = 0.0503) after 24 months and 8.00% vs. 18.00% (p = 0.0264) after 36 months of clinical follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates for TLR after 12 months were 1.46% for short and 7.69% for long lesions (p = 0.0012), 2.06% vs. 8.75% after 24 months (p = 0.0027) and 4.96% vs. 9.59% after 36 months of follow-up (p = 0.0109). Scaffold thrombosis rates were low.

CONCLUSIONS

In long lesions compared to short ones the bioresorbable scaffold Absorb implanted with the proper PSP technique Absorb has significant higher rates of DOCE.

THE LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Is 3 (non-random sample).

Procedural Predictors for Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Thrombosis: Analysis of the Individual Components of the "PSP" Technique

The technique used at the time of implantation has a central role in determining the risk of thrombosis in bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS). Different definitions of the "optimal" implantation technique exist, however. The impact of individual procedural characteristics on the risk of scaffold thrombosis (ScT) was evaluated in a single-center observational study that enrolled 657 patients (79% males, mean age 63 ± 12 years) with 763 lesions who received a total of 925 BRS for de novo lesions. During a median 1076 (762⁻1206) days' follow-up there were 28 cases of thrombosis. Independent predictors of ScT included the use of predilatation balloons bigger than the nominal BRS diameter (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.4 (0.16⁻0.98), p = 0.04), sizing (implantation in vessels with reference vessel diameter >3.5 mm or <2.5 mm: HR = 5.71 (2.32⁻14.05), p = 0.0002) and the degree of vessel expansion (ratio of minimum lumen to reference vessel diameter, HR: 0.005 (0.0001⁻0.23), p = 0.007). In addition, a mild BRS oversizing (final BRS diameter to vessel diameter 1.14⁻1.28) was associated with a lower thrombosis risk, whereas undersizing and more severe oversizing (final BRS diameter to vessel diameter <1.04 and >1.35, respectively) were associated with an increased risk of ScT (HR = 0.13 (0.02⁻0.59), p = 0.0007). In conclusion, different components of the "optimal" technique have different impacts on the risk of BRS thrombosis. Besides predilatation with a balloon larger than the BRS diameter, correct vessel size selection and a mild to moderate oversizing appear to be protective.

Delayed flow-mediated vasodilation and critical coronary stenosis

Endothelial dysfunction, wall thickening and plaque are progressive manifestations of atherosclerosis. Delayed or absent brachial artery dilation after ischemic stimulus has been associated with severity of extracoronary and coronary atherosclerosis. In the current study, we aimed to verify if delayed or absent dilation associates with critical coronary stenosis. We also evaluated the association between coronary stenosis, carotid artery wall thickness and peripheral artery disease. Endothelial function was investigated by flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery up to 3 min after ischemia, and patients classified as early, late or no dilators. Coronary angiography was performed through transradial or femoral artery approach. Computerized quantitative angiography was used to obtain percent stenosis of all lesions, while the Gensini score was used to evaluate the severity of coronary atherosclerosis. Seventy-four patients were enrolled. Carotid wall thickness and plaque, and peripheral artery disease were detected by ultrasound. Subjects with critical coronary stenosis showed a higher prevalence of delayed or absent dilation (coronary stenosis ≥70 per cent: late dilators 50 per cent, no dilators 35 per cent; coronary stenosis ≤70 per cent : late dilators 27 per cent, no dilators 6 per cent). The Gensini score was progressively higher in late dilators and no dilators compared with early dilators (early: 4.5±13.5; late 17.5±27.1; no 39.7±55.0; P<0.02). Carotid atherosclerosis and peripheral artery disease were more prevalent in subjects with critical coronary stenosis. Delayed or absent dilation associates with coronary stenosis and different degree of coronary atherosclerosis. The kinetic of arterial dilation seems to be relevant as the magnitude of dilation.

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.

Long-term outcome of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

Coronary bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome the limitations of standard metallic stents, especially to address late events after percutaneous coronary interventions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BRS, compared with Everolimus-eluting stents (EES), using the data available from randomized trials, with a focus on long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Published randomized trials comparing BRS to EES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were searched for within PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases up to April 4th 2017. The summary measure used was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies were eligible, including 5219 patients. At 2 years, BRS was associated with higher rates of target lesion failure (9.4% vs 7.2%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; p = 0.008) and device thrombosis (2.3% vs 0.7%; OR = 3.22; 95% CI 1.86 to 5.57; p < 0.0001) compared with EES. The incidence of both early (within 30 days after implantation, 1.1% vs 0.5%, OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.81; p = 0.05) and very-late device thrombosis (>1 year, 0.6% vs 0.1%, OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.82; p = 0.01) was higher with BRS compared with EES.

CONCLUSIONS

BRS may be associated with worse two-years clinical outcomes compared with EES in patients with coronary artery disease.

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) are associated with an excess of thrombotic complications compared with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved BVS versus metallic EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at longest available follow-up.

METHODS

The authors searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and web sources for randomized trials comparing BVS and EES. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion failure and definite or probable stent thrombosis, respectively.

RESULTS

Seven trials were included: in sum, 5,583 patients were randomized to receive either the study BVS (n = 3,261) or the EES (n = 2,322). Median time of follow-up was 2 years (range 2 to 3 years). Compared with metallic EES, risk of target lesion failure (9.6% vs. 7.2%; absolute risk difference: +2.4%; risk ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.59; number needed to harm: 41; p = 0.003; I² = 0%) and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 0.7%; absolute risk difference: +1.7%; risk ratio: 3.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.87 to 5.30; number needed to harm: 60; p < 0.0001; I² = 0%) were both significantly higher with BVS. There were no significant differences in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality between groups. The increased risk for ST associated with BVS was concordant across the early (<30 days), late (30 days to 1 year), and very late (>1 year) periods (p_interaction = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with metallic EES, the BVS appears to be associated with both lower efficacy and higher thrombotic risk over time. (Bioresorbable vascular scaffold compare to everolimus stents in long term follow up; CRD42017059993).

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - basic concepts and clinical outcome

The introduction of percutaneous treatment of coronary artery stenosis with balloon angioplasty was the first revolution in interventional cardiology; the advent of metallic coronary stents (bare and drug-eluting) marked the second and third revolutions. However, the latest generation of drug-eluting stents is limited by several factors. Permanent vessel caging impairs arterial physiology, and the incidence of very late stent thrombosis - although lower with the second generation than with the first generation of drug-eluting stents - remains a major concern. This complication is mainly related to the presence of permanent metallic implants, chronic degeneration triggered by an inflammatory response to the coating polymer, and/or adverse effects of antiproliferative drugs on endothelial regeneration. In 2011, self-degrading coronary stents - the bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) - were introduced into clinical practice, showing good short-term results owing to their adequate strength. The advantage of these devices is the transient nature of vascular scaffolding, which avoids permanent vessel caging. In this Review, we summarize the latest research on BVS, with a particular emphasis on the implantation technique (which is different from that used with metallic stents) to outline the concept that BVS deployment methods have a major effect on procedural success and prognosis of patients with coronary artery stenosis. Furthermore, the clinical outcome of BVS in randomized clinical trials and in phase IV studies are discussed in different pathophysiological settings, such as stable or acute coronary disease. Finally, all the available data on the safety profile of BVS regarding scaffold thrombosis are discussed.