Efficacy and Safety of Absorb Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in Peripheral Artery Disease: A Single-Arm Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) treated with Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) by analyzing all the published studies on the clinical characteristics of patients with PAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. Efficacy, safety, and basic characteristics were analyzed.

RESULTS

Four studies were included in meta-analysis, including a total number of 155 patients with PAD. The pooled overall primary patency, freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR), symptom resolution, and wound healing were 90%, 96%, 94%, and 86%, respectively. The pooled perioperative complication and all-cause mortality were 4% and 9%, respectively. Preoperative total occlusion was detected in 43 of 192 lesions (22%). The mean lesion length was 27.26 mm. In terms of comorbidities, the pooled percentage of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease history, and smoking were 65%, 74%, 49%, 43%, 20%, and 57%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Among these studies, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus were the most common comorbidities in patients with PAD. The Absorb everolimus-eluting BVS was safe and showed the favorable clinical outcomes in both patency and TLR, especially in infrapopliteal disease with heavy calcification. The conclusions of this meta-analysis still needed to be verified by more relevant studies with more careful design, more rigorous execution, and larger sample size.

Exploring new insights in coronary lesion assessment and treatment in patients with diabetes mellitus: the impact of optical coherence tomography

In this review, we summarise new insights into diagnostic approaches and treatment strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Despite the improvements in therapy, the clinical management of DM patients remains challenging as they develop more extensive CAD at a younger age and consistently have worse clinical outcomes than non-DM patients. Current diagnostic modalities as well as revascularisation treatments mainly focus on ischemic lesions. However, the impact of plaque morphology and composition are emerging as strong predictors of adverse cardiac events even in the absence of identified ischemia. In particular, the presence of vulnerable plaques such as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA) lesions has been identified as a very strong predictor of future adverse events. This emphasises the need for an approach combining both functional and morphological methods in the assessment of lesions. In particular, optical coherence tomography (OCT) has proven to be a valuable asset by truly identifying TCFAs. New treatment strategies should consist of individualised and advanced medical regimens and may evolve towards plaque sealing through percutaneous treatment.

Impact of Selection Preference on Longer-Term Outcomes between Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent for True Lumen Tracking-Recanalized Chronic Total Occlusion

Creation of sizable subintima during intervention for chronic total occlusions (CTO) could lead to the key selection preference of metallic stents rather than bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and then possibly deviate the outcome comparisons in real-world studies. By including recanalized CTO with true lumen tracking, we tested if any selection preference remained and compared the outcomes between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and BVS implantation.Among 211 consecutive CTO interventions with true lumen tracking from August 2014 to April 2018 when BVS was available, we compared the clinical and interventional features between 28 patients with BVS and 77 patients with EES implantation. With propensity score matching and a median follow-up of 50.5 (37.3-60.3) months, we further assessed 25 patients with BVS and 25 with EES for target vessel failure (TVF: cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization).Multivariate analyses showed that BVS was still favored in the presence of LAD CTO (odds ratio (OR) = 3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-11.7) and an average scaffold/stent size ≥ 3 mm (OR = 10.5, 95% CI = 3.0-37.3). EES was preferred for lesions with a J-CTO score ≥ 3 (OR = 19.3, 95% CI = 3.4-110.8) and multivessel intervention necessary at index procedure (OR = 11.3, 95% CI = 1.9-67.3). With matched comparisons, the TVF-free survival of EES was better than that of BVS for CTO recanalization (P = 0.049 by log-rank test) at long-term follow-up.Even with true lumen tracking techniques, selection bias remained substantial when determining either device for CTO implantation. The matched comparison of outcomes suggested the unfavorable longer-term impacts of the first generation of BVS on CTO lesions.

Effects of aggressive predilatation, sizing, and postdilatation strategy for coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffolds implantation

BACKGROUND

The results of the recent Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers trial showed that the predilatation, sizing, and postdilatation (PSP) technique did not lower the long-term rates of scaffold thrombosis and adverse events. We evaluated the impact of aggressive PSP bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) implantation on the short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS

From June 2014 to December 2016, 150 patients with BRS implantation were enrolled and received successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), of whom 104 received aggressive PSP technique (high-pressure predilatation and lesion preparation in addition to the traditional PSP technique). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

All patients underwent successful PCI and BRS implantation with final Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade 3 flow. The baseline and procedure characteristics were similar in both groups. Debulking techniques were used in 13 (8.7%) patients. Intracoronary imaging modalities were used in 73 (48.7%) patients. After BRS implantation, no adverse events were observed within 30 days in both groups. During the mean follow-up period of 2.98 ± 0.77 years, 12 (8.0%) patients experienced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including one cardiovascular death (0.6%), three nonfatal myocardial infarction (2.0 %), and 11 target-vessel revascularization (7.3 %). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that aggressive PSP remained an independent protective factor for MACEs. Moreover, the use of intracoronary imaging and rotablation atherectomy was associated with better clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Lesion preparation by aggressive PSP in BRS implantation was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Vulnerable Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque

BACKGROUND

Acute coronary syndromes most commonly arise from thrombosis of lipid-rich coronary atheromas that have large plaque burden despite angiographically appearing mild.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques.

METHODS

Three-vessel imaging was performed with a combination intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) catheter after successful PCI of all flow-limiting coronary lesions in 898 patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with an angiographically nonobstructive stenosis not intended for PCI but with IVUS plaque burden of ≥65% were randomized to treatment of the lesion with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) versus GDMT alone. The primary powered effectiveness endpoint was the IVUS-derived minimum lumen area (MLA) at protocol-driven 25-month follow-up. The primary (nonpowered) safety endpoint was randomized target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 24 months. The secondary (nonpowered) clinical effectiveness endpoint was randomized lesion-related major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, or progressive angina) at latest follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients were randomized (93 BVS, 89 GDMT alone) at 15 centers. The median angiographic diameter stenosis of the randomized lesions was 41.6%; by near-infrared spectroscopy-IVUS, the median plaque burden was 73.7%, the median MLA was 2.9 mm², and the median maximum lipid plaque content was 33.4%. Angiographic follow-up at 25 months was completed in 167 patients (91.8%), and the median clinical follow-up was 4.1 years. The follow-up MLA in BVS-treated lesions was 6.9 ± 2.6 mm² compared with 3.0 ± 1.0 mm² in GDMT alone-treated lesions (least square means difference: 3.9 mm²; 95% confidence interval: 3.3 to 4.5; p < 0.0001). Target lesion failure at 24 months occurred in similar rates of BVS-treated and GDMT alone-treated patients (4.3% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.96). Randomized lesion-related major adverse cardiac events occurred in 4.3% of BVS-treated patients versus 10.7% of GDMT alone-treated patients (odds ratio: 0.38; 95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 1.28; p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

PCI of angiographically mild lesions with large plaque burden was safe, substantially enlarged the follow-up MLA, and was associated with favorable long-term clinical outcomes, warranting the performance of an adequately powered randomized trial. (PROSPECT ABSORB [Providing Regional Observations to Study Predictors of Events in the Coronary Tree II Combined with a Randomized, Controlled, Intervention Trial]; NCT02171065).

Time-Varying Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold During 5-Year Follow-up: A Systematic Meta-analysis and Individual Patient Data Pooled Study

Importance

Bioresorbable scaffolds were designed to provide clinical benefits after their complete bioresorption. Prior studies demonstrated early risks with the Absorb polymeric bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). Whether this risk profile changes over time during the course of its bioresorption is unknown.

Objective

To examine outcomes of the first-generation BVS before and after 3 years, the point of its complete bioresorption in animals.

Data Sources

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane database, conference proceedings, and public websites for relevant studies.

Study Selection

Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials of BVS vs metallic drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease with at least 5-year follow-up. Four trials of BVS vs everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with 3384 patients met criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Individual patient data from the 4 trials were pooled, and summary-level meta-analysis was performed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The major effectiveness and safety measures were target lesion failure (TLF; cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and device thrombosis. Outcomes were examined through 5-year follow-up and between 0 to 3 and 3 to 5 years.

Results

Mean age for the 3384 patients was 62.8 years; 2452 patients were men (72.5%), and diabetes was present in 1020 patients (30.2%). Through 5-year follow-up, treatment with BVS compared with EES was associated with higher rates of TLF (14.9% vs 11.6%; HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .03) and device thrombosis (2.5% vs 0.8%; HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.46-5.65; P = .002). Target lesion failure occurred in 11.6% of BVS-treated patients vs 7.9% of EES-treated patients between 0 to 3 years (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80), and 4.3% of BVS-treated patients vs 4.5% of EES-treated patients between 3 to 5 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.31) (P for interaction = .046). Device thrombosis occurred in 2.4% of BVS-treated patients vs 0.6% of EES-treated patients between 0 to 3 years (HR, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.75-8.50) and 0.1% of BVS-treated patients vs 0.3% of EES-treated patients between 3 to 5 years (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.07-2.70) (P for interaction = .03). These results were consistent by spline analysis and after multiple imputation and multivariable analysis.

Conclusions and Relevance

The period of excess risk for the first-generation Absorb BVS ends at 3 years. These data provide mechanistic insights into the timing of adverse events after BVS and identify the hurdles to be overcome for bioresorbable technology to be accepted as a valid alternative for patients with coronary artery disease.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01751906, NCT01844284, NCT01923740, and NCT01425281.

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Diffuse Long Coronary Narrowings

Clinical benefits of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation for long coronary lesions were not sufficiently evaluated. The efficacy and safety of BVS and metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) were compared for the treatment of long coronary narrowings. A total of 341 patients with diffuse long lesions (requiring device length ≥28 mm) were randomized to receive either BVS (n = 171) or EES (n = 170) implantation. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events which included death from cardiac cause, myocardial infarction, device thrombosis, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at 12 months. The trial was terminated early because the manufacturer stopped supplying BVS. The mean lesion length was 32.2 ± 13.1 mm in the BVS group and 35.3 ± 13.0 mm in the EES group. The 12-month follow-up was completed in 332 patients (97.4%). At 12 months, the primary endpoint events occurred in 2 patients (1.2%) in the BVS group and in 4 patients (2.4%) in the EES group (hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval = 0.09 to 2.67, p = 0.398). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 1 patient (0.6%) in the BVS group and 1 patient (0.6%) in the EES group (hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval = 0.06 to 15.94, p = 0.998). In conclusion, in patients with long native coronary artery disease, significant differences between BVS and EES were not observed regarding the primary composite endpoint of death from cardiac cause, myocardial infarction, device thrombosis, or target-lesion revascularization at 12 months. However, due to the early termination of this trial and a low number of events, the results cannot be considered clinically relevant (clinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02796157).

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.

Long-term clinical results of biodegradable vascular scaffold ABSORB BVS™ using the PSP-technique in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

The PSP (predilatation, sizing, post-dilatation)-technique was developed to improve the prognosis of patients after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation. In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) the use of BVS is particularly demanding and carries some potential risk regarding aggressive lesion preparation, proper vessel sizing due to spasm and thrombus inside the artery. The aim herein, was to determine the long-term results of BVS stenting in ACS patients depending on the scaffold implantation technique.

METHODS

The present study is a prospective, two-center study, which consisted of 182 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California, USA) implantation for the ACS. All patients were divided into two groups. The first consisted of 52 patients treated with the PSP-technique (PSP group). The second group enrolled 130 patients treated with a non-PSP procedure (non-PSP group).

RESULTS

The procedure was successful in all patients. The mean observation time was 28.8 ± 16.5 months (median 28.3 months, interquartile range 24.0 [17.0-41.0] months). It was found that target vessel failure (TVF) was consistently reduced in patients using the PSP-technique as compared with the non-PSP group (5.8% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.03). Moreover, PSP-technique was superior to non-PSP-technique concerning major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (3.7% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.02). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the use of PSP technique significantly decreased the risk of target vessel revascularization (odds ratio [OR] 0.11, p = 0.01), TVF (OR 0.28, p = 0.03) and MACE (OR 0.29, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The PSP-technique for BVS implantation improves long-term results and should also be recommended for newer generations of the bioresorbable scaffold.

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).

Effect of working environment and procedural strategies on mechanical performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

Polymeric bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), at their early stages of invention, were considered as a promising revolution in interventional cardiology. However, they failed dramatically compared to metal stents showing substantially higher incidence of device failure and clinical events, especially thrombosis. One problem is that use of paradigms inherited from metal stents ignores dependency of polymer material properties on working environment and manufacturing/deployment steps. Unlike metals, polymeric material characterization experiments cannot be considered identical under dry and submerged conditions at varying rates of operation. We demonstrated different material behaviors associated with variable testing environment and parameters. We, then, have employed extracted material models, which are verified by computational methods, to assess the performance of a full-scale BRS in different working condition and under varying procedural strategies. Our results confirm the accepted notion that slower rate of crimping and inflation can potentially reduce stress concentrations and thus reduce localized damages. However, we reveal that using a universal set of material properties derived from a benchtop experiment conducted regardless of working environment and procedural variability may lead to a significant error in estimation of stress-induced damages and overestimation of benefits procedural updates might offer. We conclude that, for polymeric devices, microstructural damages and localized loss of structural integrity should complement former macroscopic performance-assessment measures (fracture and recoil). Though, to precisely capture localized stress concentration and microstructural damages, context-related testing environment and clinically-relevant procedural scenarios should be devised in preliminary experiments of polymeric resorbable devices to enhance their efficacy and avoid unpredicted clinical events. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) with the hope to become the next cardiovascular interventional revolution failed in comparison to metal stents. When BRS were characterized using methods for metal stents, designers were misled to seek problem sources at erroneous timeframe and use inefficient indicators, and thus no signal of concern emerged. We demonstrated fundamental flaws associated with applying a universal set of material properties to study device performances in different phases of manufacturing/implantation, and these may be responsible for failure in predicting performance in first-generation BRS. We introduced new criterion for the assessment of structural integrity and device efficacy in next-generation BRS, and indeed all devices using polymeric materials which evolve with the environment they reside in.

Long-term follow-up of BVS from a prospective multicenter registry: Impact of a dedicated implantation technique on clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a consistent and dedicated implantation strategy on long-term outcomes after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in a real-world cohort of patients with a high prevalence of complex lesions.

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds may result in a reduced incidence of late and very-late scaffold thrombosis (ScT) after the complete reabsorption of the scaffold, but this hypothesis is hampered by data from RCTs that showed a higher than expected incidence of late events. However, these studies did not adopt a dedicated implantation technique, that proved to be fundamental in reducing the incidence of adverse events.

METHODS

573 consecutive patients (912 lesions) treated with bioresorbable scaffolds between May 2012 and December 2014 were enrolled in 3 high-volume centers that used a dedicated implantation strategy from the beginning. Primary endpoints were target-lesion failure (TLF) and definite and probable ScT. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, target-lesion and target-vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

The registry enrolled a high complexity subset of lesions (69.4% of type B2 or C lesions; 10.3% of severe calcific lesions; 26.1% of bifurcations). Predilatation was performed in almost all cases (99.2%); intracoronary imaging was liberally adopted (37.3%). Mean scaffold length was 42.9 ± 27.4 mm per patient, and post-dilation with a 1:1 high-pressure (22 ± 3.5 atm) balloon was performed in 99.9% of lesions. Median follow-up (available for 98.6% of patients) was 981 days (IQR 802-1133). Overall incidence of ScT was reassuringly low: three thrombotic events occurred during the first year (0.5%), while only one event ensued in the second year of follow-up, and ScT rate remained stable thereafter up to the fourth year (0.7%). Cumulative TLF rates at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years were 3.0%, 6.0%, 7.8% and 12.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

These long-term results from a complex "real-world" population appear to be reassuring as regards to the incidence of ScT and TLF when BVS are implanted by experienced operators with a dedicated implantation technique.

Characteristics and outcome of patients with complex coronary lesions treated with bioresorbable scaffolds: three-year follow-up in a cohort of consecutive patients

AIMS

The safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) has recently been challenged. However, it is unclear whether outcomes depend on the complexity of the lesion or on the technique used to implant the device. The aim of this study was to report on the outcomes after BRS implantation in complex lesions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This investigator-initiated, single-centre, single-arm observational study recruited 657 consecutive patients (79% male, 66.7% acute coronary syndrome, age 63±12 years). Three hundred and twenty-two lesions (42.3%) in 297 (45.2%) patients with type B2 or C lesions were classified as the "complex lesions group". Post-procedural residual stenosis was slightly but significantly greater in the complex lesions group (15.7±11.3% vs. 13.5±10.2%, p=0.0109). The median follow-up was 1,076 (762-1,206) days without difference between groups. The Kaplan-Meier rates of early scaffold thrombosis (3.5% vs. 1.1%, p=0.0478, HR 3.03 [1.06-8.70]) and scaffold restenosis (9.9% vs. 9.1%, p=0.0262, HR 2.34 [1.11-4.94]) were higher in patients with complex lesions than in those with simple lesions. Late/very late thrombosis, death, repeat myocardial infarction, or repeat coronary interventions were not different. In patients in whom strict guidelines for implantation were applied, the incidence of thrombosis was reduced by 76% in complex lesions and by 92% in simple ones, such that there were no differences between groups (2.3% vs. 0.5%, p=0.3899). In contrast, the incidence of scaffold restenosis was reduced by 59% and 89%, and a difference between groups persisted (7.0% vs. 1.6%, p=0.0235).

CONCLUSIONS

BRS implantation in complex lesions is, as expected, associated with higher incidence of events as compared to simple ones. The technique used at the time of the implantation, however, reduces the incidence of adverse outcomes.

Implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of pudendal artery stenosis and erectile dysfunction

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been designed to overcome long-term limitations of metallic drug-eluting stents including permanent metallic "caging" that might trigger late coronary adverse events. Here, we report for the first time a case of 72-year gentleman with previous coronary artery disease, treated by successful implantation of BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular) due to significant stenosis of internal pudenda artery and erectile dysfunction. After 2 years, BVS completely resorbed and there were no signs of pudendal artery restenosis on CT scan, whereas blood flow and sexual function improved.

Long-term outcome of first 300 implanted Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in an all-comers Middle East population

Objectives

To evaluate long-term clinical outcomes of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) system (Abbott Vascular) in an all-comers Middle East population.

Methods

This prospective registry study included an initial set of patients with coronary lesions treated using Absorb BVS. Patients were followed for target vessel failure (TVF) including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization.

Results

A total of 217 patients (age, 55 ± 11 years; male, 169) with 300 treated lesions were included (median follow-up, 36 months [range, 26–41 months]; complete follow-up, 201 patients). Diabetes mellitus and acute coronary syndrome were present in 50% and 57% of patients, respectively. TVF rate was 32/201 (15.9%), including cardiac death in 10 (5%), target vessel MI in 13 (6.5%), and target lesion revascularization in 22 patients (10.9%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 11/201 patients (5.5%). TVF was associated with heart failure, worse ejection fraction, multi-vessel BVS, multi BVS in lesion, and total BVS length >50 mm.

Conclusions

Long-term outcome following Absorb BVS implantation in a population with high prevalence of high-risk and complex patients is acceptable, but heart failure, worse ejection fraction, and multi-vessel or long BVS implantation were associated with worse outcomes.

Three-Year Results of the Absorb Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in Infrapopliteal Arteries

Purpose: To investigate the midterm performance of the everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) for the treatment of symptomatic infrapopliteal atherosclerotic disease. Methods: A single-center study prospectively enrolled 48 symptomatic patients (mean age 82.1±8.0 years; 27 men) between September 2013 and February 2018 to evaluate the Absorb everolimus-eluting BVS system in distal popliteal and tibial lesions. Mean lesion length was 20.1±10.8 mm. Following predilation, up to 2 BVS were implanted in target lesions in 55 limbs. Clinical and duplex ultrasound follow-up was performed at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months to determine 30-day morbidity and midterm Kaplan-Meier estimates of binary restenosis, clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), amputation, and mortality. Results: Seventy-one scaffolds were implanted to treat 61 lesions. Technical success was achieved in all patients, with no amputation, death, or target limb bypass surgery within 30 days of the index procedure. There was 1 early thrombotic occlusion of 2 BVS in a previously anticoagulated patient not given antiplatelet medication after the procedure. During a mean follow-up of 24.0±15.3 months, 11 (23%) patients died; the remaining 37 were available for follow-up. Binary restenosis (50%–75%) was detected in 6 (8%) scaffolds. Primary patency estimates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 92.2%, 90.3%, and 81.1%; freedom from CD-TLR estimates were 97.2%, 97.2%, and 87.3% at the same time points. No late scaffold thrombosis has been observed. The majority of the 55 limbs (51, 93%) were clinically improved; 4 (7%) were unchanged. Thirty-six (92%) of 39 limbs treated for tissue loss achieved complete wound healing, with no major amputation (limb salvage 100%). Conclusion: Midterm follow-up demonstrates excellent safety, patency, and freedom from CD-TLR rates using the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold below the knee.

Outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold: data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR)

AIMS

Randomised trials indicate higher rates of stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion failure (TLF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) compared with modern drug-eluting stents (DES). We aimed to investigate the outcome of all Swedish patients treated with the Absorb BRS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Absorb BRS (n=810) was compared with commonly used modern DES (n=67,909). The main outcome measure was definite ST; mean follow-up was two years. Despite being implanted in a younger, lower-risk population compared with modern DES, the Absorb BRS was associated with a higher crude incidence of definite ST at stent level: 1.5 vs. 0.6%, hazard ratio (HR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.23), adjusted HR 4.34 (95% CI: 2.37-7.94); p<0.001. The patient level adjusted HR was 4.44 (95% CI: 2.25-8.77). Rates of in-stent restenosis were similar for BRS and DES. Non-compliance with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) guidelines was noted in six out of 12 BRS ST events. Three very late ST events occurred with the Absorb BRS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world observational study, the Absorb BRS was associated with a significantly higher risk of definite ST compared with modern DES. Non-compliance with DAPT guideline recommendations was common among Absorb definite ST events.

One-year clinical outcomes after unrestricted implantation of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (RAI registry)

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess outcomes following Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BVS) implantation in an unrestricted clinical practice according to an "on-label" versus "off-label" indication.

METHODS AND RESULTS

RAI is a prospective registry, investigating BVS performance in different lesion subsets. No specific exclusion criteria were applied. Co-primary endpoints were target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite/probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) at one year. A total of 1,505 patients (1,969 lesions) were enrolled. In 58% of patients, BVS was implanted in at least one off-label subset according to the manufacturer's instructions for use. Predilatation was performed in 98.5% of the cases, and post-dilatation in 96.8%. At one-year follow-up, TLR and ScT rates were 3.3% and 1.3%, respectively. TLR was significantly higher in the off-label group (4.0% vs. 2.2%, HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.0-3.4; p=0.05) while a trend towards a higher ScT rate was observed in the off-label group (1.7% vs. 0.6%, HR 2.7, 95% CI: 0.9-8.2; p=0.06). At multivariate analysis, treatment of in-stent restenosis, chronic total occlusion and BVS diameter were independent predictors of TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data from a real-world population suggest that BVS could be associated with acceptable one-year clinical outcomes when meticulously implanted. However, a higher rate of adverse events was observed when this device was used in off-label lesions.

IVUS-Guided Versus OCT-Guided Coronary Stent Implantation: A Critical Appraisal

Procedural guidance with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging improves the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by: 1) informing the necessity for lesion preparation; 2) directing appropriate stent sizing to maximize the final stent area and minimize geographic miss; 3) selecting the optimal stent length to cover residual disease adjacent to the lesion, thus minimizing geographic miss; 4) guiding optimal stent expansion; 5) identifying acute complications (edge dissection, stent malapposition, tissue protrusion); and 6) clarifying the mechanism of late stent failure (stent thrombosis, neointimal hyperplasia, stent underexpansion or fracture, or neoatherosclerosis). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) provides similar information to IVUS (with some important differences), also potentially improving acute and long-term patient outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI. The purpose of this review is to describe the similarities and differences between IVUS and OCT technologies, and to highlight the evidence supporting their utility to improve PCI outcomes.

Intravascular Ultrasound for Guidance and Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the mainstay management of symptomatic obstructive stable coronary artery disease (despite optimal medical treatment) and acute coronary syndrome. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has emerged as an adjunct to angiography, permitting better assessment of the coronary lesion and stent apposition. Data from multiple studies have demonstrated improved clinical and procedural outcomes with IVUS-guided PCI. This review discusses the use of IVUS, with emphasis on technique, parameters, and applications during coronary interventions. In addition, the clinical outcomes data are highlighted with IVUS compared with conventional angiography-guided PCI.

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.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the long-term efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents are limited. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the long-term outcomes with both devices.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes beyond 1 year and comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting stents were included. Summary estimates risk ratios (RRs) were constructed. The primary efficacy outcome was target lesion failure, defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and the primary safety outcome was definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis. Six trials with 5392 patients were included (mean follow-up, 25 months). BVS had a higher rate of target lesion failure (RR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.58) driven by the higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26-2.17) and target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-1.78). The risk of definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis (RR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.89-5.49) and very late stent/scaffold thrombosis (>1 year; RR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.66-13.8) was higher with BVS. The risk of cardiac and all-cause mortality was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with everolimus-eluting stents, BVS is associated with increased risk of target lesion failure driven by the increased rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization in these studies (mean follow-up, 25 months). The risk of definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis and very late stent/scaffold thrombosis seems to be higher with BVS. Further information from randomized trials is critical to evaluate clinical outcomes with BVS on complete resolution of the scaffold.

Impact of PSP Technique on Clinical Outcomes Following Bioresorbable Scaffolds Implantation

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were introduced in clinical practice to overcome the long-term limitations of newer-generation drug-eluting stents. Despite some initial promising results of the Absorb BRS, safety concerns have led to the discontinuation of the commercialization of this device. Several retrospective studies have assessed the impact of the so-called Pre-dilation, Sizing and Post-dilation (PSP) technique concluding that an optimal PSP technique can improve clinical outcomes following BRS implantation. In this article, the definition of the PSP technique, and the current evidence of its impact on clinical outcomes are put in perspective. Additionality, the relationship between the PSP technique and the dual-antiplatelet therapy to prevent scaffold thrombosis is addressed. Finally, the future perspectives of BRS technology in clinical practice are commented.

Acute and one-year clinical outcomes following implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: the ABSORB UK Registry

AIMS

The aim of this registry was to monitor practice patterns and outcomes in patients treated with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) during the early phase of usage in the UK.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1,005 patients with de novo coronary lesions were treated using careful implantation techniques at 24 centres. Follow-up at one year was obtained in 99%. An independent clinical events committee and angiographic core lab adjudicated all events. Patient age was 52 years and 46% presented with acute coronary syndromes. Lesion complexity was B2/C in 47.4%, with an average of 1.4±0.6 BVS implanted and a BVS length of 28±14.3 mm. A single BVS was implanted in 71.3%. High pressure post-dilatation was performed in 94.9%, with 50% using intravascular imaging. Device success was achieved in 98.7% and procedure success in 97.3% of patients. At one year, the device-oriented endpoint target lesion failure was 3.2%, and the patient-oriented endpoint major adverse cardiac events was 3.4%. Definite ST occurred in 1.4%. By multivariable analysis, scaffold size of 2.5 mm predicted ST at one year (OR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.28-8.37; p=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

With careful patient selection and technique, TLF rates following BVS implantation in real-world practice are comparable with contemporary drug-eluting stents. ST rates remain high, with small vessel size identified as a contributory factor.

Current Interventions for the Left Main Bifurcation

Contemporary clinical trials, registries, and meta-analyses, supported by recent results from the EXCEL (Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) and NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trials, have established percutaneous coronary intervention of left main coronary stenosis as a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low and intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores. As left main percutaneous coronary intervention gains acceptance, it is imperative to increase awareness for patient selection, risk scoring, intracoronary imaging, vessel preparation, and choice of stenting techniques that will optimize procedural and patient outcomes.

Effect of Technique on Outcomes Following Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Implantation: Analysis From the ABSORB Trials

BACKGROUND

Procedural technique may affect clinical outcomes after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation. Prior studies suggesting such a relationship have not adjusted for baseline patient and lesion characteristics that may have influenced operator choice of technique and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine whether target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) rates within 3 years of BVS implantation are affected by operator technique (vessel size selection and pre- and post-dilation parameters).

METHODS

TLF and ScT rates were determined in 2,973 patients with 3,149 BVS-treated coronary artery lesions from 5 prospective studies (ABSORB II, ABSORB China, ABSORB Japan, ABSORB III, and ABSORB Extend). Outcomes through 3 years (and between 0 to 1 and 1 to 3 years) were assessed according to pre-specified definitions of optimal technique (pre-dilation, vessel sizing, and post-dilation). Multivariable analysis was used to adjust for differences in up to 18 patient and lesion characteristics.

RESULTS

Optimal pre-dilation (balloon to core laboratory-derived reference vessel diameter ratio ≥1:1), vessel size selection (reference vessel diameter ≥2.25 mm and ≤3.75 mm), and post-dilation (with a noncompliant balloon at ≥18 atm and larger than the nominal scaffold diameter, but not by >0.5 mm larger) in all BVS-treated lesions were performed in 59.2%, 81.6%, and 12.4% of patients, respectively. BVS implantation in properly sized vessels was an independent predictor of freedom from TLF through 1 year (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; p = 0.01) and through 3 years (HR: 0.72; p = 0.01), and of freedom from ScT through 1 year (HR: 0.36; p = 0.004). Aggressive pre-dilation was an independent predictor of freedom from ScT between 1 and 3 years (HR: 0.44; p = 0.03), and optimal post-dilation was an independent predictor of freedom from TLF between 1 and 3 years (HR: 0.55; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present large-scale analysis from the major ABSORB studies, after multivariable adjustment for baseline patient and lesion characteristics, vessel sizing and operator technique were strongly associated with BVS-related outcomes during 3-year follow-up. (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB II]; NCT01425281; ABSORB III Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] [ABSORB-III]; NCT01751906; A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb BVS] System in Chinese Population-ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] [ABSORB CHINA]; NCT01923740; ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation [ABSORB EXTEND]; NCT01023789; AVJ-301 Clinical Trial: A Clinical Evaluation of AVJ-301 [Absorb BVS] in Japanese Population [ABSORB JAPAN]; NCT01844284).

Three-Year Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffold: Individual-Patient-Data Meta-Analysis From the ABSORB Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) completely resorbs within 3 years after coronary artery implantation. The safety and effectiveness of BVS through this critical 3-year period have not been characterized.

METHODS

We performed an individual-patient-data pooled meta-analysis of the 4 randomized ABSORB trials in which 3389 patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS (n=2164) or cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (n=1225). The primary efficacy outcome measure was target lesion failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), and the primary safety outcome measure was device thrombosis.

RESULTS

BVS compared with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents resulted in higher 3-year rates of target lesion failure (11.7% versus 8.1%; risk ratio [RR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.73; P=0.006), driven by greater target vessel myocardial infarction (7.8% versus 4.2%; RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.26-2.35; P=0.0006) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.6% versus 4.4%; RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.05-1.98; P=0.02), with comparable cardiac mortality (1.1% versus 1.1%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.47-1.88; P=0.85). Device thrombosis rates through 3 years were also higher with BVS (2.4% versus 0.6%; RR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.70-8.11; P=0.001). Between 1 and 3 years, target lesion failure rates (6.1% versus 3.9%; P=0.02) and device thrombosis rates (1.1% versus 0.0%; P<0.0001) were higher with BVS than cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present individual-patient-data pooled meta-analysis of the ABSORB trials, BVS was associated with increased rates of target lesion failure and device thrombosis between 1 and 3 years and cumulatively through 3 years of follow-up compared with everolimus-eluting stents.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01751906, NCT01844284, NCT01923740, and NCT01425281.

Hybrid Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Combination With Drug-Eluting Stents or Drug-Coated Balloons for Complex Coronary Lesions

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have become an attractive option in the percutaneous coronary intervention field due to the potential advantages associated with the complete resorption process that occurs within a few years. However, current-generation BVS have several limitations including thicker struts, reduced radial strength, and limited expansion capability when compared with drug-eluting stents (DES). As a result, complex coronary disease often contains BVS-inappropriate/unfavorable segments. This does not necessarily mean that BVS use must be completely avoided, and minimizing the length of permanent metallic caging may still be advantageous. Operators should fully understand the limitations of current BVS, and when to consider a hybrid strategy of BVS in combination with DES or drug-coated balloons.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in daily clinical practice: A single-centre experience

Background

Recent evidence has raised concerns regarding the safety of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (E-BVS) (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Following these data, the use of this device has diminished in the Netherlands; however, daily practice data are limited. Therefore we studied the incidence of safety and efficacy outcomes with this device in daily clinical practice in a single large tertiary centre in the Netherlands.

Methods

All E‑BVS treated patients were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel non-fatal myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and clinically-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR). The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite scaffold thrombosis.

Results

Between October 2013 and January 2017, 105 patients were treated with 147 E‑BVS. This population contained 42 (40%) patients with diabetes mellitus and 43 (40.9%) undergoing treatment for acute coronary syndrome, and thus represents a high-risk patient cohort. Mean follow-up was 19.8 months. Intravascular imaging guidance during scaffold implantation was used in 64/105 (43.5%) patients. The primary endpoint (TLF) occurred in 3 (2.9%) patients. All-cause mortality and cardiac mortality occurred in 2 (2%) and 0 (0%) patients respectively. TV-MI occurred in 2 patients (1.9%): both were periprocedural and not related to the BVS implantation. TLR occurred in 1 patient (1.0%) during follow-up. No definite scaffold thrombosis occurred during follow-up.

Conclusion

This single-centre study examining the real-world experience of E‑BVS implantation in a high-risk population shows excellent procedural safety and long-term clinical outcomes.

Clinical and angiographic outcome of a single center, real world population treated with a dedicated technique of implantation for bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. The FAtebenefratelli Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (FABS) registry

OBJECTIVES

With this prospective study we aim at investigating the long-term outcome of a consecutive cohort of patients successfully treated with bioresorbable scaffold (BVS) implantation.

BACKGROUND

It is not clearly understood if there is a relation between the technique of BVS implantation and the outcome.

METHODS

Between December 2012 and December 2014, all consecutive patients treated with BVS were included in this registry and received an angiographic follow-up. After a run-in phase, all BVS were implanted using a specific technique consisting of aggressive predilation, correct scaffold sizing, visually determined, and high-pressure post-dilation with a noncompliance balloon. Primary endpoint was late lumen loss (LLL) at 1-year angiographic follow-up and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) at 2-year clinical follow-up. Secondary endpoints were the occurrence of binary restenosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and every single component of MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, TLR) at 2 years.

RESULTS

A total of 144 lesions in 122 patients treated consecutively with BVS, were enrolled. Diabetics were 29.5% and acute coronary syndrome at presentation occurred in 29.5% of patients. At the angiographic follow-up LLL was 0.38 ± 0.9. At 2-year clinical follow-up, ID-TLR occurred in eight patients (5.6%). We observed two cases of scaffold thrombosis (1.38%, one early and one very late). At multivariate statistical analysis, STEMI presentation remained a significant predictor for TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

In a complex, all-comers real world population, BVS implantation with a specific, and standardized technique showed to be feasible, with acceptable mid-term angiographic and long-term clinical outcome.

2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) offer the potential to improve long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention after their complete bioresorption. Randomised trials have shown non-inferiority between BVS and metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year in composite safety and effectiveness outcomes, although some increases in rates of target vessel-related myocardial infarction and device thrombosis were identified. Outcomes of BVS following the first year after implantation are unknown. We sought to ascertain whether BVS are as safe and effective as drug-eluting stents within 2 years after implantation and between 1 and 2 years.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials in which patients were randomly assigned to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS or metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and followed up for at least 2 years. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane database, TCTMD, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial Results, CardioSource, and abstracts and presentations from major cardiovascular meetings up to April 1, 2017, to identify relevant studies. The primary efficacy outcome measure was the device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac mortality, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation) and the primary safety outcome measure was definite or probable device thrombosis. Individual patient data from the four ABSORB trials were used for landmark and subgroup analysis and multivariable modelling.

FINDINGS

We identified seven randomised trials in which 5583 patients were randomly assigned to Absorb BVS (n=3261) or metallic EES (n=2322) and followed up for 2 years. BVS had higher 2-year relative risks of the device-oriented composite endpoint than did EES (9·4% [304 of 3217] vs 7·4% [169 of 2299]; relative risk [RR] 1·29 [95% CI 1·08-1·56], p=0·0059). These differences were driven by increased rates of target vessel-related myocardial infarction (5·8% [187 of 3218] vs 3·2% [74 of 2299]; RR 1·68 [95% CI 1·29-2·19], p=0·0003) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (5·3% [169 of 3217] vs 3·9% [90 of 2300]; 1·40 [1·09-1·80], p=0·0090) with BVS, with non-significant differences in cardiac mortality. The cumulative 2-year incidence of device thrombosis was higher with BVS than with EES (2·3% [73 of 3187] vs 0·7% [16 of 2281]; RR 3·35 [95% CI 1·96-5·72], p<0·0001). Landmark analysis between 1 and 2 years also showed higher rates of the device-oriented composite endpoint (3·3% [69 of 2100] vs 1·9% [23 of 1193]; RR 1·64 [95% CI 1·03-2·61], p=0·0376) and device thrombosis (0·5% [11 of 2085] vs none [0 of 1183], p<0·0001) in BVS-treated patients than in EES-treated patients.

INTERPRETATION

BVS was associated with increased rates of composite device-oriented adverse events and device thrombosis cumulatively at 2 years and between 1 and 2 years of follow-up compared with EES.

FUNDING

Abbott Vascular.