Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffolds: Deployment Tips and Tricks and the Future of the Technology

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.

Three-year clinical and two-year multimodality imaging outcomes of a thin-strut sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: MeRes-1 trial

AIMS

Although the proof of concept of the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) is well documented, device-related adverse outcomes with first-generation BRS indicate longer-term surveillance. The current study provides insights into the safety and performance of the MeRes100, a novel second-generation sirolimus-eluting BRS, beyond one-year up to three-year follow-up (FU).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 108 enrolled patients with de novo coronary artery lesions who underwent implantation of MeRes100 as part of the first-in-human MeRes-1 trial were followed up clinically beyond one year at two and three years and with multiple modality imaging at six months and two years. At three-year FU, the cumulative major adverse cardiac events rate was 1.87%, in the form of two ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisations. No scaffold thrombosis was reported. Between six months and two years at quantitative coronary angiography, in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) (0.15±0.22 mm vs. 0.23±0.32 mm; p=0.18) and in-scaffold LLL (0.13±0.22 mm vs. 0.24±0.34 mm; p=0.10) changed insignificantly. IVUS subset analysis revealed a non-significant reduction in mean lumen area (6.17±1.28 mm2 vs. 5.47±1.50 mm2; p=0.21) and minimum lumen area (5.14±1.19 mm2 vs. 4.05±1.42 mm2; p=0.10) at two years compared to post-procedural measurements. OCT subset analysis demonstrated 99.24±2.27% neointimal strut coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

The extended outcomes of the MeRes-1 trial demonstrated sustained efficacy and safety of the MeRes100 BRS with maintained lumen patency up to two years by multimodality imaging and no very late scaffold thrombosis up to three-year clinical FU.The MeRes-1 trial is registered at the Clinical Trials Registry-India. CTRI Number: CTRI/2015/04/005706.