The 1‑year safety and efficacy outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for coronary artery disease treatment in diabetes mellitus patients: the ABSORB DM Benelux study

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.

The 1-Year Safety and Efficacy Outcomes of Magmaris, Novel Magnesium Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Diabetes Mellitus Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the major risk factors contributing to Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) and is associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even when the second generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) is used. In order to overcome the disadvantages of permanent caging of a vessel with metallic DES, bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) technology has been recently developed. However, the prognosis of patients with DM and ACS treated with PCI via subsequent implantation of Magmaris (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany)—a novel magnesium-bioresorbable scaffold—is poorly investigated. Methods: A total of 193 consecutive subjects with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) who, from October 2016 to March 2020, received one or more Magmaris scaffolds were enrolled in this study. The diabetic group was compared with non-diabetic subjects. Results: There were no significant differences in the occurrence of primary endpoints (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and in-stent thrombosis) and principal secondary endpoints (target-lesion failure, scaffold restenosis, death from any reason, and other cardiovascular events) between the two compared groups in a 1-year follow-up period. Conclusions: The early 1-year-outcome of magnesium bioresorbable scaffold (Magmaris) seems to be favorable and suggests that this novel BRS is safe and effective in subjects with NSTE-ACS and co-existing DM.

Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study

Background

In this prespecified AIDA‐trial sub‐study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3‐year follow‐up.

Methods and results

All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin‐treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively).

Conclusions

In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3‐year 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.