Two-year clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in complex coronary artery disease patients stratified by SYNTAX score and ABSORB II study enrolment criteria

The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold in real-world practice: long-term follow-up of the AMC Single Centre Real World PCI Registry

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable scaffolds have been introduced to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents. Higher rates of device thrombosis, however, have been reported up to 3 years after implantation of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). In the current article, we therefore report long-term clinical outcomes of the AMC Absorb Registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the AMC Absorb Registry, all patients who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention with Absorb BVS implantation between 30 August 2012 and 5 August 2013 at the Amsterdam University Medical Centre-Academic Medical Centre were included. The composite endpoint of this analysis was target-vessel failure (TVF). The median follow-up of the study cohort of the AMC Absorb Registry was 1534 days. At the time of the cross-sectional data sweep the clinical status at 4 years was known in 124 of 135 patients (91.9%). At long-term follow-up, the composite endpoint of TVF had occurred in 27 patients. The 4‑year Kaplan-Meier estimate of TVF was 19.8%. At 4 years cardiac death had occurred in 4 patients (3.2%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction in 9 (6.9%) patients. Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 5 (3.8%) patients. We found 1 case of very late scaffold thrombosis that occurred at 911 days after device implantation in a patient who was not on dual anti-platelet therapy.

CONCLUSION

In a patient population reflecting routine clinical practice, we found that cases of TVF continued to accrue beyond 2 years after Absorb BVS implantation.

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.

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.

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.