Appropriate use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions: a recommendation from experienced users : A position statement on the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in the Netherlands

Long-Term Outcomes After Implantation of Magnesium-Based Bioresorbable Scaffolds—Insights From an All-Comer Registry

Background

The magnesium-based sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Mg-BRS) Magmaris™ showed promising clinical outcomes, including low rates of both the target lesion failure (TLF) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT), in selected study patients. However, insights regarding long-term outcomes (>2 years) in all-comer populations remain scarce.

Methods

We analyzed data from a single-center registry, including patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using the Mg-BRS. The primary outcome comprised the device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE) representing a hierarchical composite of cardiac death, ScT, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) up to 5 years.

Results

In total, 84 patients [mean age 62 ± 11 years and 63 (75%) men] were treated with the Mg-BRS devices between June 2016 and March 2017. Overall, 101 lesions had successfully been treated with the Mg-BRS devices using 1.2 ± 0.4 devices per lesion. Pre- and postdilatation using dedicated devices had been performed in 101 (100%) and 98 (97%) of all the cases, respectively. After a median follow-up time of 62 (61–64) months, 14 (18%) patients had experienced DoCEs, whereas ScT was encountered in 4 (4.9%) patients [early ScTs (<30 days) in three cases and two fatal cases]. In 4 (29%) of DoCE cases, optical coherence tomography confirmed the Mg-BRS collapse and uncontrolled dismantling.

Conclusion

In contradiction to earlier studies, we encountered a relatively high rate of DoCEs in an all-comer cohort treated with the Mg-BRS. We even observed scaffold collapse and uncontrolled dismantling. This implicates that this metal-based BRS requires further investigation and may only be used in highly selected cases.

Everolimus- vs. novolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of the present study was to evaluate novolimus-eluting BRS (DESolve) as interventional treatment for patients with ACS, and to compare its 12-month outcomes with the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (Absorb).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients with ACS (including unstable angina pectoris, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) treated with either the Absorb or the DESolve BRS were evaluated in a 1:1 matched-pair analysis. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, were evaluated as a major endpoint. The occurrence of scaffold thrombosis was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were eligible for this analysis. The rate of MACE at 12 months was comparable between the Absorb and the DESolve group (8.3% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.738). The occurrence of target lesion revascularization (6.2% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.700) and scaffold thrombosis (4.1% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.580) was comparable as well. All instances of scaffold thrombosis occurred within 30 days of the index procedure.

CONCLUSION

In this study, similar 12-month event rates were observed for both BRS types after implantation for the treatment of ACS.

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.

Magnesium ion leachables induce a conversion of contractile vascular smooth muscle cells to an inflammatory phenotype

Phenotype switching is a characteristic response of vascular smooth muscle cells (vSMCs) to the dynamic microenvironment and contributes to all stages of atherosclerotic plaque. Here, we immersed pure magnesium and AZ31 alloy in the completed medium under cell culture condition, applied the resultant leaching extracts to the isolated contractile rat aortic vSMCs and investigated how vSMCs phenotypically responded to the degradation of the magnesium-based stent materials. vSMCs became more proliferative and migratory but underwent more apoptosis when exposed to the degradation products of pure magnesium; while the AZ31 extracts caused less cell division but more apoptosis, thus slowing cell moving and growing. Noticeably, both leaching extracts dramatically downregulated the contractile phenotypic genes at mRNA and protein levels while significantly induced the inflammatory adhesive molecules and cytokines. Exogenously added Mg ions excited similar transformations of vSMCs. With the liberation or supplementation of Mg²⁺ , the expression patterns of the pro-contractile transactivator myocardin and the pro-inflammatory transcriptional factor kruppel-like factor 4 (KLF4) were reversed. Overall, the degradation of the Mg-based materials would evoke a shift of the contractile vSMCs to an inflammatory phenotype via releasing Mg ions to induce a transition from the phenotypic control of vSMCs by the myocardin to that by the KLF4. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 988-1001, 2019.

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.

BRS implantation in long lesions requiring device overlapping: myth or reality?

Dealing with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) implantation in long lesions requiring device overlapping in this particular moment might seem a little provocative for several reasons. First, most studies testing BVS have focused on their safety and efficacy profile in simple patients with simple lesions. Second, ABSORB II did not meet its primary endpoint, while ABSORB III showed a higher rate of target vessel-myocardial infarction (TV-MI) at 2 years. Third, data on porcine model showed that overlapping zone has delayed but greater neointimal proliferation with consequent higher risk for scaffold thrombosis in the short-term and of in-scaffold restenosis in the long-term. Fourth, recently published data showed higher risk of TVF in patients treated with ≥60 mm BVS. Given all these premises, it may seem right to put aside this technology, while it may seem inappropriate to hypothesize the use of BVS in long lesions. The aim of the present review is precisely to critically review the available evidences regarding BVS with particular regard to overlapping BVS in order to understand whether this technology has a future per se and especially in long coronary lesions requiring overlap.

Recommendations for the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions : 2017 revision

BACKGROUND

To eliminate some of the potential late limitations of permanent metallic stents, the bioresorbable coronary stents or 'bioresorbable vascular scaffolds' (BVS) have been developed.

METHODS

We reviewed all currently available clinical data on BVS implantation.

RESULTS

Since the 2015 position statement on the appropriateness of BVS in percutaneous coronary interventions, several large randomised trials have been presented. These have demonstrated that achieving adequate 1 and 2 year outcomes with these first-generation BVS is not straightforward. These first adequately powered studies in non-complex lesions showed worse results if standard implantation techniques were used for these relatively thick scaffolds. Post-hoc analyses hypothesise that outcomes similar to current drug-eluting stents are still possible if aggressive lesion preparation, adequate sizing and high-pressure postdilatation are implemented rigorously. As long as this has not been confirmed in prospective studies the usage should be restricted to experienced centres with continuous outcome monitoring. For more complex lesions, results are even more disappointing and usage should be discouraged. When developed, newer generation scaffolds with thinner struts or faster resorption rates are expected to improve outcomes. In the meantime prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, beyond one year) is recommended in an individualised approach for patients treated with current generation BVS.

CONCLUSION

The new 2017 recommendations downgrade and limit the use of the current BVS to experienced centres within dedicated registries using the updated implantation protocol and advise the prolonged usage of DAPT. In line with these recommendations the manufacturer does not supply devices to the hospitals without such registries in place.

Perioperative Management of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With New-Generation Drug-Eluting Metallic Stents and Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Undergoing Elective Noncardiac Surgery

Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is considered mandatory after new-generation drug-eluting coronary stent implantation to reduce ischemic complications such as stent thrombosis, but the need for DAPT makes the timing of elective surgery difficult. Interrupting DAPT places patients at risk for stent thrombosis, and surgery in the setting of DAPT may lead to bleeding. The 2016 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommends delaying elective noncardiac surgery for a minimum 6-month period to reduce ischemic risks after the implantation of a second-generation metallic drug-eluting stent (DES). However, the guideline fails to appropriately stratify surgical patients based on the indication for second-generation metallic DES implantation and other patient characteristics. The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL), which has a higher propensity for stent thrombosis compared with second-generation metallic DES, also produces DAPT management challenges in patients presenting for elective noncardiac surgery. Due to the novelty of bioresorbable vascular scaffold therapy, there are no guidelines available for the management of patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery. This review addresses DAPT management in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery less than 12 months after new-generation metallic DES or bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation and provides further guidance for anesthesiologists who encounter these challenging cases.

Overlapping implantation of bioresorbable novolimus-eluting scaffolds: an observational optical coherence tomography study

Overlapping implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds is frequently necessary, but its influence on vessel and scaffold structure has not been thoroughly analyzed previously. The aim of this study was to analyze the acute effects of overlapping implantation on BRS as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT). A total of 38 patients with de novo coronary artery stenoses who underwent OCT in the context of implantation of novolimus-eluting BRS (DESolve, Elixir Medical Corporation, Sunnyvale, California, USA) were investigated. In 15 patients, overlapping implantation of two BRS was performed, while 23 patients with implantation of one single BRS served as the control group. OCT data were retrospectively analyzed regarding acute scaffold implantation results. There were no significant differences between the overlap and control group in terms of residual in-scaffold area stenosis, scaffold area, mean or minimal lumen area, eccentricity index, incomplete scaffold apposition area or malapposition. While strut fracture was slightly more frequent in BRS with overlap its incidence was low overall. In patients with overlapping BRS, overlap segments did not display smaller lumen areas than segments without overlap (mean lumen area overlap: 8.16 ± 2.97 mm² vs. no overlap: 7.70 ± 2.55 mm²; p = 0.71; minimal lumen area overlap: 6.83 ± 2.71 mm² vs. no overlap: 6.17 ± 2.58 mm²; p = 0.37). Acute mechanical performance of novolimus-eluting BRS is not impaired by overlapping implantation. It can be assumed that vessel expansion compensates for the double scaffold layer in the overlap area resulting in a similar lumen area in overlap areas and in those with a single strut layer.

Patient profile and periprocedural outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in comparison with drug-eluting and bare-metal stent implantation. Experience from ORPKI Polish National Registry 2014-2015

INTRODUCTION

There are limited data on the comparison of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and drug-eluting stent (DES)/bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in an unselected population of patients with coronary artery disease.

AIM

To compare the periprocedural outcomes and patient profile of BVS and DES/BMS implantation in an all-comer population from the ORPKI Polish National Registry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 141,324 consecutive patients from 151 invasive cardiology centers in Poland were included in this prospective registry between January 2014 and June 2015. Periprocedural data on patients with at least one BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA), DES or BMS (all available types) implantation in de novo lesions during index percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina (SA) or acute coronary syndrome were collected.

RESULTS

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold was the most often used in patients with SA, in single-vessel disease and in younger male patients. Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation was significantly more often associated with periprocedural administration of ticagrelor/prasugrel (6.8% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.001) and use of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in comparison with the DES/BMS group (2.8% vs. 0.6% and 1.8% vs. 0.1%, respectively; p = 0.001 for both). The incidence of periprocedural death was significantly lower in the BVS group than the DES/BMS group (0.04% vs. 0.32%; p = 0.02), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustment for covariates. On the other hand, coronary artery perforation occurred significantly more often during BVS delivery (0.31% vs. 0.12%; p = 0.01), and BVS implantation was identified as an independent predictor of coronary artery perforation in multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR = 6.728, 95% CI: 2.394-18.906; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with BVS implantation presented an acceptable safety and efficacy profile in comparison with the DES/BMS group. However, lower risk patients were the most frequent candidates for BVS implantation.

Post-dilatation after implantation of bioresorbable everolimus- and novolimus-eluting scaffolds: an observational optical coherence tomography study of acute mechanical effects

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to investigate the acute mechanical effects of post-dilatation on bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT).

BACKGROUND

Post-dilatation with high-pressure balloons is regarded as a key component of BRS implantation for treatment of coronary artery stenoses. However, the impact of post-dilatation on BRS in vivo has not been thoroughly investigated.

METHODS

OCT was performed after the implantation procedure of 51 everolimus-eluting or novolimus-eluting polylactic acid-based BRS with (n = 27) or without non-compliant balloon post-dilatation (n = 24). The number of malapposed struts, strut fractures, edge dissections, residual in-scaffold area stenosis, and incomplete scaffold apposition area was analyzed over the complete length of each BRS with a spacing of 1 mm.

RESULTS

OCT revealed a significantly lower incomplete scaffold apposition area if post-dilatation was performed (0.16 ± 0.49 mm² with post-dilatation vs. 2.65 ± 2.78 mm² without post-dilatation, p < 0.001), as well as a significantly lower absolute number of malapposed struts (1 ± 2 with post-dilatation vs. 13 ± 13 without post-dilatation, p < 0.001). No significant differences regarding residual in-scaffold area stenosis, strut fracture, edge dissection, symmetry index, or eccentricity index were observed in patients with vs. without post-dilatation.

CONCLUSION

Post-dilatation of BRS with non-compliant balloons significantly reduces the number of malapposed struts and incomplete scaffold apposition area without inducing higher rates of edge dissection or strut fracture.

Early and midterm outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for ostial coronary lesions: insights from the GHOST-EU registry

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in coronary ostial lesions. Ostial lesions represent a challenging angiographic subset, with higher event rates compared with non-ostial lesions. BVS might be associated with advantages over the long term, but their safety in this setting remains to be explored.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Procedural and 12-month follow-up data from consecutive patients treated with BVS for lesions located at the ostium of the right (RCA), left anterior (LAD) or circumflex (LCX) coronary in 11 European centres were collected. The primary device-oriented endpoint was defined as a combination of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation. The database included a total of 1,549 lesions in 1,304 patients with a mean age of 62±11years. There were 90 ostial lesions (5.8%) in 84 patients (6.4%) located at the ostial RCA (14; 16%), LCX (29; 32%), or LAD (47; 52%). Patients presenting with ostial lesions did not differ from the remaining cohort except for a higher incidence of prior revascularisation. Predilation was performed in 97% of the lesions (vs. 96% in non-ostial, p=0.618), post-dilation in 43% (versus 58% in the non-ostial group, p=0.008). At quantitative coronary angiography, treatment of ostial lesions was associated with higher residual stenosis (30% [23-41] vs. 26% [20-37], p=0.035), but no difference in minimum lumen diameter existed (p=0.447). Follow-up data were available at 385 [362-465] days. The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated rates of scaffold thrombosis were 4.9% and 2.0% (ostial and non-ostial lesion groups, respectively, log-rank p=0.005). The device-oriented composite endpoint occurred, respectively, in 12.6% and 4.6% at 12 months (log-rank p=0.001). Treatment of ostial lesions was an independent predictor of this endpoint (p=0.0025, HR 2.65 [1.41-4.97]).

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with a suboptimal implantation technique, treatment of coronary ostial lesions was an independent predictor of clinical events in a cohort of patients treated with BVS.

Mid- to Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Patients Treated With the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold: The BVS Expand Registry

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to report on clinical outcomes beyond 1 year of the BVS Expand registry.

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have proven feasibility and safety of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California). However, data on medium- to long-term outcomes are limited and available only for simpler lesions.

METHODS

This is an investigator-initiated, prospective, single-center, single-arm study evaluating performance of the BVS in a lesion subset representative of daily clinical practice, including calcified lesions, total occlusions, long lesions, and small vessels. Inclusion criteria were patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, stable/unstable angina, or silent ischemia caused by a de novo stenotic lesion in a native previously untreated coronary artery. Procedural and medium- to long-term clinical outcomes were assessed. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

From September 2012 to January 2015, 249 patients with 335 lesions were enrolled. Mean number of scaffolds per patient was 1.79 ± 1.15. Invasive imaging was used in 39%. In 38.1% there were American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification type B2/C lesions. Mean lesion length was 22.16 ± 13.79 mm. Post-procedural acute lumen gain was 1.39 ± 0.59 mm. Median follow-up period was 622 (interquartile range: 376 to 734) days. Using Kaplan-Meier methods, the MACE rate at 18 months was 6.8%. Rates of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 18 months were 1.8%, 5.2%, and 4.0%, respectively. Definite scaffold thrombosis rate was 1.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, BVS implantation in a complex patient and lesion subset was associated with an acceptable rate of adverse events in the longer term, whereas no cases of early thrombosis were observed.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds technology: current use and future developments

Coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffolds are a new appealing therapeutic option in interventional cardiology. The most used and studied is currently the Absorb BVS™. Its backbone is made of poly-L-lactide and coated by a thin layer of poly-D,L-lactide, it releases everolimus and is fully degraded to H2O and CO2 in 2-3 years. Absorb BVS™ seems to offer several theoretical advantages over metallic stent, as it gives temporary mechanical support to vessel wall without permanently caging it. Therefore, long-term endothelial function and structure are not affected. A possible future surgical revascularization is not compromised. Natural vasomotion in response to external stimuli is also recovered. Several observational and randomized trials have been published about BVS clinical outcomes. The main aim of this review is to carry out a systematic analysis about Absorb BVS™ studies, evaluating also the technical improvements of the Absorb GT1 BVS™.

Optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention: indispensables for bioresorbable scaffolds

INTRODUCTION

With new developments in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), such as the introduction of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), percutaneous treatment of coronary artery diseases has entered a new era. Without metallic remnants, BRSs appear able to overcome several limitations of the existing metallic stents and provide a physiologic treatment of coronary artery pathology.

AREAS COVERED

BRS have different mechanical properties compared to the traditional metallic stents that should be taken into account during their implantation. Lesion selection, device sizing and satisfied pre-dilatation should be implemented prudently. Although intravascular imaging is not mandatory for the implantation of BRSs it may have a value in optimizing device deployment assess final results and reduce the risk of device related adverse events such as re-stenosis, or scaffold thrombosis. This review aims to reveal the crucial points about the methods of optimization in each steps of BRS implantation. Expert commentary: The target lesions for BRS should be selected meticulously. Pre-dilatation, post-dilatation and intra-vascular imaging techniques should be implemented appropriately to avoid undesirable events after scaffold implantation.

The ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold: A novel, fully resorbable drug-eluting stent: Current concepts and overview of clinical evidence

The advent of fully bioresorbable stent technology and specifically the ABSORB™, a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) stent, is heralded as breakthrough technology in the current era of percutaneous coronary interventions. This article reviews the current understanding of this technology along with the clinical evidence from trials and registries of ABSORB BVS that included patients with both simple as well as more complex "real-world" coronary lesions. In addition, considering the current limitations of this device-mostly associated with the mechanical properties of the polymeric scaffold structure-a review of guidelines on successful implantation of the ABSORB BVS is presented. Although expert feedback suggests extensive use of this device in routine clinical practice outside the United States despite a paucity of data on long-term safety in this setting, attention to procedural details and implantation technique is obligatory to achieve optimal clinical outcomes.

Are BVS suitable for ACS patients? Support from a large single center real live registry

OBJECTIVES

To investigate one-year outcomes after implantation of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to stable angina patients.

BACKGROUND

Robust data on the outcome of BVS in the setting of ACS is still scarce.

METHODS

Two investigator initiated, single-center, single-arm BVS registries have been pooled for the purpose of this study, namely the BVS Expand and BVS STEMI registries.

RESULTS

From September 2012-October 2014, 351 patients with a total of 428 lesions were enrolled. 255 (72.6%) were ACS patients and 99 (27.4%) presented with stable angina/silent ischemia. Mean number of scaffold/patient was 1.55±0.91 in ACS group versus 1.91±1.11 in non-ACS group (P=0.11). Pre- and post-dilatation were performed less frequent in ACS patients, 75.7% and 41.3% versus 89.0% and 62.0% respectively (P=0.05 and P=0.001). Interestingly, post-procedural acute lumen gain and percentage diameter stenosis were superior in ACS patients, 1.62±0.65mm (versus 1.22±0.49mm, P<0.001) and 15.51±8.47% (versus 18.46±9.54%, P=0.04). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate at 12months was 5.5% in the ACS group (versus 5.3% in stable group, P=0.90). One-year definite scaffold thrombosis rate was comparable: 2.0% for ACS population versus 2.1% for stable population (P=0.94), however, early scaffold thromboses occurred only in ACS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year clinical outcomes in ACS patients treated with BVS were similar to non-ACS patients. Acute angiographic outcomes were better in ACS than in non-ACS, yet the early thrombotic events require attention and further research.

Clinical Outcomes of Bioresorbable Scaffold in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

We aim to perform a systematic literature review on all studies reporting the clinical outcomes of the use of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) in different settings of coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUND

BRS are designed to provide early support of the vessel wall postangioplasty, deliver antiproliferative agents to prevent excessive hyperplastic healing responses and finally "disappear" when no longer required. Emerging data have provided evidence of their use in specific clinical scenarios.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed by 2 independent reviewers utilizing MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The only 2 CE marked BRS: everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable vascular scaffold ABSORB BVS and the myolimus-eluting DESolve Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold (BCS) System were included.

RESULTS

The studies were categorized into: ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), stable CAD, and "all-comers" group. Thirty-one studies were included; 8 in STEMI patients (all ABSORB), 15 in stable CAD patients. In the STEMI group (n = 606), acute procedural success ranged from 96% to 100%, cardiac mortality 0-9.1%, recurrent MI and stent thrombosis rates were 0-4.3%. In the stable CAD group, the 13 ABSORB studies (n = 3259) demonstrated cardiac mortality rate of 0-0.6%, recurrent MI rate 0-4.5%, and stent thrombosis rate 0-4.3%

CONCLUSIONS

Current clinical data suggest the BRS, especially the ABSORB BVS, may represent a reasonable alternative to DES in uncomplicated coronary anatomy.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in acute coronary syndromes: clinical evidence, tips and tricks

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is routine treatment for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, permanent metallic caging of the vessel has several shortcomings, such as side branch jailing and impossibility of late lumen enlargement. Moreover, DES PCI is affected by vasomotion impairment. In ACS a high thrombus burden and vasospasm lead to a higher risk of acute and late acquired stent malapposition than in stable patients. This increases the risk of acute, late and very late stent thrombosis. In this challenging clinical setting, the implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) could represent an appealing therapeutic option. Temporary vessel scaffolding has proved to have several advantages over metallic stent delivery, such as framework reabsorption, late lumen enlargement, side branch patency, and recovery of physiological reactivity to vasoactive stimuli. In the thrombotic environment of ACS, BVS implantation has the benefit of capping the thrombus and the vulnerable plaque. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds also seems to reduce the incidence of angina during follow-up. Acute coronary syndromes patients may therefore benefit more from temporary polymeric caging than from permanent stent platform implantation. The aim of this review is to update the available knowledge concerning the use of BVS in ACS patients, by analyzing the potential pitfalls in this challenging clinical setting and presenting tricks to overcome these limitations.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold overlap evaluation with optical coherence tomography after implantation with or without enhanced stent visualization system (WOLFIE study): a two-centre prospective comparison

To assess if enhanced stent visualization (ESV)-guided implantation of overlapping bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is superior to angiography alone-guided implantation in the reduction of overlap length. WOLFIE is a two-centre prospective open study enrolling 30 patients treated with implantation of at least two overlapping BVS. In the first centre (London), BVS implantation was guided by conventional angiography, while in the second centre (Ferrara), an ESV system was systematically employed. The primary endpoint of the study was overlap length. Secondary endpoints were: stacked struts number, area, thickness, and amount of clusters. In the ESV-guided group, overlap length was significantly lower compared to angiography-guided group [0.9 (0.6-1.8) vs. 2.2 (1.3-3.2) mm, p = 0.02]. Similarly, all secondary endpoints were significantly reduced. ESV-guided implantation of overlapping BVS is safe and effective in minimizing both overlap length and number of stacked struts.

Current status of clinically available bioresorbable scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are widely used as first choice devices in percutaneous coronary interventions. However, certain concerns are associated with the use of DES, i.e. delayed arterial healing with a subsequent risk of neo-atherosclerosis, late stent thrombosis and hypersensitivity reactions to the DES polymer. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds are the next step in percutaneous coronary interventions introducing the concept of supporting the natural healing process following initial intervention without leaving any foreign body materials resulting in late adverse events. The first-generation devices have shown encouraging results in multiple studies of selected patients up to the point of full bioresorption, supporting the introduction in regular patient care. During its introduction in daily clinical practice outside the previously selected patient groups, a careful approach should be followed in which outcome is continuously monitored.