Three to four years outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus second‐generation drug‐eluting stent: A meta‐analysis

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.

Five-year clinical outcomes using the bioresorbable vascular scaffold: Insights from the FRANCE ABSORB registry

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials comparing the first-generation absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with a drug-eluting stent showed a moderate but significant increase in the rate of 3-year major adverse cardiac events and scaffold thrombosis, followed by a decrease in adverse events after 3 years.

AIM

The objective of this study was to assess the 5-year outcomes of patients treated with at least one absorb BVS and included in the FRANCE ABSORB registry.

METHODS

All patients treated in France with an absorb BVS were prospectively included in a large nationwide multicentre registry. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of 5-year major adverse cardiac events. Secondary efficacy outcomes were the rates of 5-year target vessel revascularization and definite/probable scaffold thrombosis.

RESULTS

Between September 2014 and April 2016, 2,070 patients were included in 86 centres (mean age 55±11 years; 80% men; 49% with acute coronary syndrome). The rates of 1-, 3- and 5-year major adverse cardiac events were 3.9%, 9.4% and 12.1%, respectively (including cardiac death in 2.5% and target vessel revascularization in 10.4%). By multivariable analysis, diabetes, oral anticoagulation, the use of multiple Absorb BVSs and the use of a 2.5mm diameter absorb BVS were associated with 5-year major adverse cardiac events. The rates of 1-, 3- and 5-year definite/probable scaffold thrombosis were 1.5%, 3.1% and 3.6%, respectively. By multivariable analysis, older age, diabetes, anticoagulation at discharge and the use of a 2.5mm diameter absorb BVS were associated with 5-year scaffold thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Absorb BVS implantation was associated with low rates of 1-year major adverse cardiac events, which increased significantly at 3-year follow-up. There was a clear decrease in the rates of scaffold thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events after 3 years.

Stent Selection for Primary Angioplasty and Outcomes in the Era of Potent Antiplatelets. Data from the Multicenter Randomized Prague-18 Trial

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the recommended stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to determine why interventional cardiologists used non-DES and how it influenced patient prognoses. The efficacy and safety outcomes of the different stents were also compared in patients treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor. Of the PRAGUE-18 study patients, 749 (67.4%) were treated with DES, 296 (26.6%) with bare-metal stents (BMS), and 66 (5.9%) with bioabsorbable vascular scaffold/stents (BVS) between 2013 and 2016. Cardiogenic shock at presentation, left main coronary artery disease, especially as the culprit lesion, and right coronary artery stenosis were the reasons for selecting a BMS. The incidence of the primary composite net-clinical endpoint (EP) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, or revascularization) at seven days was 2.5% vs. 6.3% and 3.0% in the DES, vs. with BMS and BVS, respectively (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.419–5.15, p = 0.002 for BMS vs. DES and 1.25 (0.29–5.39) p = 0.76 for BVS vs. DES). Patients with BMS were at higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.01–4.76; for BMS vs. DES, p = 0.045) and at one year (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.19–3.69; p = 0.01); they also had a higher composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, and stroke (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.0–2.74; p = 0.047) at one year. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of primary EP whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. In conclusion, patients with the highest initial risk profile were preferably treated with BMS over BVS. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Five-year angiographic, OCT and clinical outcomes of a randomized comparison of everolimus and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds

Aims

To compare 5‐year angiographic, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and clinical outcomes between patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and drug‐eluting stents (DES).

Methods

The EverBio‐2 trial (Comparison of Everolimus‐ and Biolimus‐Eluting Coronary Stents with Everolimus‐Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold) was a single‐center, assessor‐blinded, randomized controlled trial in which 240 patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to BVS, everolimus‐eluting (EES) or biolimus‐eluting (BES) DES. Clinical follow‐up was scheduled up to 5 years. All patients, alive and who did not have repeat revascularization of the target lesion during follow‐up were asked to return for angiographic follow‐up at 5 years.

Results

Five‐year angiographic follow‐up was completed in 122 patients (51%) and OCT analysis was performed in 86 (36%) patients. In‐stent late lumen loss was similar in both groups with 0.50 ± 0.38 mm in BVS versus 0.58 ± 0.36 mm in EES/BES, p = 0.20. Clinical follow‐up was complete in 232 patients (97%) at 5 years. The rate of the device‐oriented endpoint was 22% in the BVS and 18% in the EES/BES group (p = 0.49). The patient‐oriented composite endpoint occurred in 40% of BVS‐ and 43% of EES/BES‐treated patients (p = 0.72) at 5 years. No acute coronary syndrome due to stent thrombosis was detected after 2 years. Complete BVS strut resorption was observed at 5 years in the OCT subgroup.

Conclusion

Five‐year clinical outcomes were similar between BVS and DES patients as well as angiographic outcomes in a selected subgroup. However, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn because the EverBio‐2 trial was not powered for clinical and angiographic endpoints at 5 years of follow‐up.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds and metallic stents in diabetic patients: a patient-level pooled analysis of the prospective ABSORB DM Benelux Study, TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS

Background

Several studies compared everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (EE-BRS) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES), but only few assessed these devices in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Aim

To evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of all-comer patients with diabetes mellitus up to 2 years after treatment with EE-BRS or EES.

Methods

We performed a post hoc pooled analysis of patient-level data in diabetic patients who were treated with EE-BRS or EES in 3 prospective clinical trials: The ABSORB DM Benelux Study (NTR5447), TWENTE (NTR1256/NCT01066650) and DUTCH PEERS (NTR2413/NCT01331707). Primary endpoint of the analysis was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or clinically driven target vessel revascularization, as well as definite or probable device thrombosis (ST).

Results

A total of 499 diabetic patients were assessed, of whom 150 received EE-BRS and 249 received EES. Total available follow-up was 222.6 patient years (PY) in the EE-BRS and 464.9 PY in the EES group. The adverse events rates were similar in both treatment groups for TLF (7.2 vs. 5.2 events per 100 PY, p = 0.39; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77–2.87), p = 0.24), MACE (9.1 vs. 8.3 per 100 PY, p = 0.83; adjusted HR = 1.23 (95% CI: 0.70–2.17), p = 0.47), and ST (0.9 vs. 0.6 per 100 PY, p > 0.99).

Conclusion

In this patient-level pooled analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus from 3 clinical trials, EE-BRS showed clinical outcomes that were quite similar to EES.

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.

Mid-term outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds vs second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), which have the characteristics of scaffold absorption and vascular function recovery, are the latest innovation in the treatment of coronary artery disease. This new concept has become a hot topic in the field of interventional cardiology. Data regarding mid-term clinical outcomes of BVS in acute coronary syndromes are currently scarce. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare mid-term outcome data for BVS and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and relevant web sites for studies with a follow-up of ≥ 1 years that studied percutaneous coronary interventions with BVS vs second-generation DES in acute coronary syndromes. A meta-analysis was performed with the software RevMan following the standards of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0.

RESULTS

Five studies, 2 randomized controlled trials, and 3 observational studies, with a total of 1758 patients (BVS n = 917; DES n = 841) and a median follow-up duration of 24 months, were included. BVS, when compared with DES, resulted in higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.12-3.64; P = .02) and stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST/ScT) (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.13-4.89, P = .02). When TLR due to device thrombosis were excluded, the difference in risk estimates between the 2 groups was no longer significant (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.73-3.82, P = .22). The risk for all-cause death (OR = 1.32 95% CI: 0.61-2.88, P = .48), cardiac death (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.58-2.86 P = .52), target vessel myocardial infarction (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 0.86-2.61, P = .15), and target lesion failure (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.76-2.35, P = .31) did not differ between BVS and DES groups.

CONCLUSION

At mid-term follow-up, BVS had a higher risk of TLR and ST/ScT than the second-generation DES in patients with acute coronary syndromes. ST/ScT was the key factor indicating the decreased safety and effectiveness of BVS relative to DES.

Bioresorbable scaffold: Never say never

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) were designed to overcome the limitations of metallic stents. Absorb BVS has provided information about strut thickness, scaffold degradation, vessel wall coverage, and their influence on thrombosis. Clinical trials have shown higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis with the absorb BVS than with second-generation drug-eluting stents.