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

Two-Year Outcomes for Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated with Magmaris and Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Large-Vessel Lesions

BACKGROUND

The acute coronary syndrome (ACS) continues to be a fundamental indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains a part of contemporary practice but permanent caging of the vascular structure with the metallic stent structure may increase the rate of device-related adverse clinical events. As an alternative to classic metallic DESs, the bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) have emerged as a temporary vascular support technology. We evaluated the mid-term outcomes of two generations of bioresorbable scaffolds-Absorb (Abbott-Vascular, Chicago, IL, USA) and Magmaris (Biotronik, Germany)-in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 193 subjects after Magmaris implantation and 160 patients following Absorb implantation in large-vessel lesions.

RESULTS

At 2 years, a significantly lower rate of a primary outcome (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis) was observed with Magmaris (5.2% vs. 15%; p = 0.002). In addition, we observed a significantly lower rate of MI in the target vessel (2.6% vs. 9.4%; p = 0.009) and a lower rate of scaffold thrombosis (0% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.008). The TLF rate between the two groups was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Magmaris demonstrated a good safety profile and more favorable clinical outcomes when compared to Absorb in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS.

Magnesium bioresorbable scaffold (Magmaris) versus polymer biodegradable ultrathin drug-eluting stent (Ultimaster) in acute coronary syndrome. Mid-term outcomes (2 years)

Introduction

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a well-known risk factor for adverse clinical outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Therefore, evaluation of coronary stents in this challenging clinical scenario can provide unique information on device safety and efficacy. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were designed to overcome long-term complications related to permanent vessel caging with a permanent metallic drug-eluting stent (DES).

Aim

We designed this study to evaluate the mid-term safety and efficiency of the Magmaris BRS in comparison to the leading new-generation ultrathin DES Ultimaster in the ACS population.

Material and methods

We present a retrospective analysis of 2-year follow-up data. The primary outcomes consisted of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and in-stent thrombosis. The second main study endpoint was defined as target-lesion failure (TLF).

Results

The study population consisted of two cohorts, the first of 193 patients treated with Magmaris implantation and the second of 169 patients treated with Ultimaster implantation. At the 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in both study cohorts in terms of primary outcome (5.1% vs. 11%; p = 0.051), and TLF (5.6% vs. 8%, p = 0.41).

Conclusions

Treatment with a second-generation BRS (Magmaris) versus a novel second-generation DES (Ultimaster) in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) was associated with similar rates of target lesion failure at 2-year follow-up.

Stent Thrombosis and Restenosis with Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents: Predictors and Current Evidence

Iterations in stent technologies, advances in pharmacotherapy, and awareness of the implications of implantation techniques have markedly reduced the risk of stent failure, both in the form of stent thrombosis (ST) and in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, given the number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed worldwide every year, ST and ISR, albeit occurring at a fairly low rate, represent a public health problem even with contemporary DES platforms. The understanding of mechanisms and risk factors for these two PCI complications has been of fundamental importance for the parallel evolution of stent technologies. Risk factors associated with ST and ISR are usually divided into patient-, lesion-, device- and procedure-related. A number of studies have shown how certain risk factors are related to early (1 month) versus late/very late ST (between 1 month and 1 year and >1 year, respectively). However, more research is required to conclusively show the role of time-dependence of risk factors also in the incidence of ISR (early [1 year] or late [>1 year]). A thorough risk assessment is required due to the complex etiology of ST and ISR. The most effective strategy to treat ST and ISR is still to prevent them; hence, it is crucial to identify patient-, lesion-, device- and procedure-related predictors.

Five Years Outcomes and Predictors of Events in a Single-Center Cohort of Patients Treated with Bioresorbable Coronary Vascular Scaffolds

Introduction: We report outcome data of patients treated with coronary bioresorbable scaffolds up to 5 years and investigate predictors of adverse events. Methods: Consecutive patients treated with at least one coronary bioresorbable scaffold (BRS, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, USA) between May 2012 and May 2014 in our center were enrolled. Clinical/procedural characteristics and outcome data at 1868 (1641–2024) days were collected. The incidence of scaffold thrombosis (ScT), restenosis (ScR), and target lesion failure (TLF) and their predictors were investigated using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analysis. Results: 512 consecutive patients and 598 lesions were included in the database. A total of 30 ScT, 42 ScR, and 92 TLF were reported. The rate of ScT was 3.6% in the first year, 2.2% in the second–third year, and 0.6% in the fourth–fifth year after implantation. The corresponding rates of ScR were 2.5%, 5.7%, and 1.1%. The corresponding incidence of TLF was 8.8%, 8.0%, 3.8%. Procedural parameters (vessel size, scaffold footprint) and the technique used at implantation (including predilation, parameters of sizing, and postdilation) were predictors of ScT and TLF in the first three years after implantation. In contrast, only diabetes was predictive of events between 4–5 years (HR 6.21(1.99–19.40), p = 0.002). Conclusions: After device resorption, the incidence of very late adverse events in lesions/patients implanted with a BRS decreases. Procedural and device-related parameters are not predictors of events anymore.

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.