Very late scaffold thrombosis of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold following implantation in STEMI after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy

Major adverse cardiovascular events after implantation of absorb bioresorbable scaffold: One-year clinical outcomes

Background/Aim: Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) represents a novel generation of intracoronary devices designed to be fully resorbed after healing of the stented lesion, delivering antiproliferative drug to suppress restenosis, providing adequate diameter of the coronary vessel and preserving the vascular endothelial function. It was supposed that BVS will reduce neointimal proliferation and that their late bioresorption will reduce the negative effects of traditional drug-eluting stents, including the late stent thrombosis, local vessel wall inflammation, loss of coronary vasoreactivity and the need for the long-term dual antiplatelet therapy. The purpose of this research was to investigate efficacy and safety of Absorb everolimus-eluting BVS implantation and the prevalence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at the mid-term follow-up. Methods: The study encompassed 42 patients selected for BVS implantation and fulfilling inclusion criteria - 37 male and 5 female - admitted to the Dedinje Cardiovascular Institute, Belgrade, Serbia over the one-year period (from January 2015 to January 2016) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Coronary vessel patency before and after stenting was assessed by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow (TIMI) grades. After the index PCI procedure with BVS all patients were clinically followed by regular (prescheduled or event-driven) visits during the next 12-month period. Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, all Absorb BVS procedures were successful, without the need for conversion to other treatment modalities. The complete reperfusion (TIMI flow grade 3) after the intervention was established in 97.6 % of patients and 100 % of them achieved the TIMI flow grade ≥ 2. The presence of angina pectoris was reduced significantly by the BVS procedure: stable angina 57.1 % to 11.9 %, (p < 0.001) and unstable angina 31 % to 0 %, respectively (p < 0.001). After the one-year follow-up, the MACE rate was 11.9 %. Myocardial infarction occurred in 4.8 % and the need for PCI reintervention in 2.4 % of cases (not influenced by the gender or the age of patients). There were 4 cases of death (all patients were older and had lower values of left ventricular ejection fraction). Conclusion: The results of the current research demonstrated a high interventional success rate of the Absorb BVS implantation, followed by the early improvement of the anginal status. However, that was not translated into the favourable mid-term clinical outcomes, opening debate about the current status of Absorb BVS and the need for future refinements of stent design and implantation techniques.

Clinical, Angiographic, and Procedural Correlates of Acute, Subacute, and Late Absorb Scaffold Thrombosis

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to identify and verify independent correlates of device thrombosis from an analysis of multicenter trials and registries.

BACKGROUND

Recent analyses suggest an increased risk of device thrombosis with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) implantation compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, and data from moderate size studies suggest a risk relationship to vessel size and technique.

METHODS

From 8,771 consecutively treated patients, 105 patients (1.2%) were identified with scaffold thrombosis within 1 year of implantation. They were matched 2:1 with controls selected randomly from nonthrombosis patients. Data-restricted multiple logistic analysis was used to identify significant independent covariates of the outcome.

RESULTS

Early (within 1 month) scaffold thrombosis occurred in 69 patients and late (1 to 12 months) thrombosis occurred in 36 patients. Modelling found significant correlations of thrombosis to be final minimal lumen diameter <1.85 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 3.1; p = 0.004), off dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) status (OR: 3.1 to 3.5; p = 0.006 to 0.053), no post-dilatation with >1.1:1 balloon/scaffold ratio (OR: 2.3; p = 0.022), and reference vessel diameter <2.40 mm (OR: 2.1; p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal vessel sizing, procedural technique, angiographic outcomes, and dual antiplatelet therapy discontinuation appear to be the principal determinants of Absorb scaffold thrombosis risk through 12 months after implantation.

Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging

The advent of intracoronary stents has greatly increased the safety and applicability of percutaneous coronary interventions. One of the drawbacks of drug-eluting stents (DES) is the increased risk of late and very late stent thrombosis (ST). It was anticipated that the risks of ST after DES implantation would be solved with the advent of fully biodegradable scaffolds, which offer the possibility of transient scaffolding of the vessel to prevent acute vessel closure and recoil while also transiently eluting an antiproliferative drug to counteract constrictive remodelling and excessive neointimal hyperplasia. In spite of the enthusiasm for the concept of bioresorbable scaffolds, current clinical data on the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) have generated concerns about scaffold thrombosis (ScT) in both the early and late phases. However, the causes of ScT in both the early and late phases have yet to be fully elucidated. This article seeks to provide insights into the possible mechanical causes of ScT in the early and late phases with data stemming from intracoronary imaging (intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography) of the currently published ScT cases following the implantation of BVS and reviews the practical recommendations for implantation of the BVS made by a group of experts.

Antiplatelet Therapy After Implantation of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds: A Review of the Published Data, Practical Recommendations, and Future Directions

The introduction of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for clinical use has raised a number of questions on whether current dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) recommendations after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, mostly deriving from data on second-generation DES, are also applicable to this completely different technology. This article aims to review the technical shortcomings of BVS-the most extensively studied fully bioresorbable coronary stent-and its contemporary rates of scaffold thrombosis, with a focus on recommendations for DAPT duration.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - basic concepts and clinical outcome

The introduction of percutaneous treatment of coronary artery stenosis with balloon angioplasty was the first revolution in interventional cardiology; the advent of metallic coronary stents (bare and drug-eluting) marked the second and third revolutions. However, the latest generation of drug-eluting stents is limited by several factors. Permanent vessel caging impairs arterial physiology, and the incidence of very late stent thrombosis - although lower with the second generation than with the first generation of drug-eluting stents - remains a major concern. This complication is mainly related to the presence of permanent metallic implants, chronic degeneration triggered by an inflammatory response to the coating polymer, and/or adverse effects of antiproliferative drugs on endothelial regeneration. In 2011, self-degrading coronary stents - the bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) - were introduced into clinical practice, showing good short-term results owing to their adequate strength. The advantage of these devices is the transient nature of vascular scaffolding, which avoids permanent vessel caging. In this Review, we summarize the latest research on BVS, with a particular emphasis on the implantation technique (which is different from that used with metallic stents) to outline the concept that BVS deployment methods have a major effect on procedural success and prognosis of patients with coronary artery stenosis. Furthermore, the clinical outcome of BVS in randomized clinical trials and in phase IV studies are discussed in different pathophysiological settings, such as stable or acute coronary disease. Finally, all the available data on the safety profile of BVS regarding scaffold thrombosis are discussed.