Registro Absorb Italiano (BVS-RAI): an investigators-owned and -directed, open, prospective registry of consecutive patients treated with the Absorb™ BVS: study design

One-year clinical performance of ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: Results from the RAI registry

OBJECTIVES

To report 1-year clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) population.

BACKGROUND

BVS use has rapidly extended to high-risk patients as those presenting with ACS. To date limited data have been reported on BVS performance in ACS patients.

METHODS

RAI is a multicenter, prospective registry that included 1,505 patients treated with at least 1 successful BVS implantation. A subgroup analysis on ACS patients was performed and the 1-year outcomes of this cohort compared to the remaining stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) population are reported here. Coprimary endpoints were target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine percent of the patients presented with ACS, of whom 36.5% with ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. ACS patients were significantly younger, with a better cardiovascular risk profile, a lower rate of multivessel disease, chronic total occlusion or in-stent restenosis and a lower Syntax score. Predilation and postdilation were performed in 97.4% and in 96.5% of cases, respectively. No differences were noted in terms of TIMI 3 final flow, but acute gain was greater in ACS compared to SCAD group (P < 0.001). At one-year follow-up no differences were found in terms of TLR (3.3% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.98), and device-oriented composite end-point (4.3% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.4) between ACS and SCAD groups. The rate of definite/probable ScT was numerically higher in ACS vs. stable CAD patients (1.3% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the use of BVS in ACS patients is associated with a numerically higher rate of ScT compared to SCAD population numerically higher, but without statistical significance.

One-year clinical outcomes after unrestricted implantation of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (RAI registry)

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess outcomes following Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BVS) implantation in an unrestricted clinical practice according to an "on-label" versus "off-label" indication.

METHODS AND RESULTS

RAI is a prospective registry, investigating BVS performance in different lesion subsets. No specific exclusion criteria were applied. Co-primary endpoints were target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite/probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) at one year. A total of 1,505 patients (1,969 lesions) were enrolled. In 58% of patients, BVS was implanted in at least one off-label subset according to the manufacturer's instructions for use. Predilatation was performed in 98.5% of the cases, and post-dilatation in 96.8%. At one-year follow-up, TLR and ScT rates were 3.3% and 1.3%, respectively. TLR was significantly higher in the off-label group (4.0% vs. 2.2%, HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.0-3.4; p=0.05) while a trend towards a higher ScT rate was observed in the off-label group (1.7% vs. 0.6%, HR 2.7, 95% CI: 0.9-8.2; p=0.06). At multivariate analysis, treatment of in-stent restenosis, chronic total occlusion and BVS diameter were independent predictors of TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data from a real-world population suggest that BVS could be associated with acceptable one-year clinical outcomes when meticulously implanted. However, a higher rate of adverse events was observed when this device was used in off-label lesions.

Thirty-Day Outcomes After Unrestricted Implantation of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (from the Prospective RAI Registry)

The Absorb biovascular scaffold (BVS) is a bioresorbable, everolimus-eluting scaffold whose data on real-world patients with complex lesions are limited. Short-term follow-up from recent studies point to a higher rate of 30-day thrombosis than observed with drug-eluting stents. We aimed to understand the short-term safety and efficacy of BVS. Registro Absorb Italiano (RAI, ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02298413) is an Italian, prospective, multicenter registry not funded, whose aim is to investigate BVS performance through a 5-year follow-up of all consecutive patients who have undergone successful implantation of ≥1 BVS in different clinical/lesion subsets. Co-primary end points were target lesion revascularization and definite/probable thrombosis. Secondary end point was the occurrence of device-oriented cardiac events. The registry involved 23 centers, with patient enrollment from October 2012 to December 2015. We here report the 30-day outcomes of the whole population of the registry. We enrolled 1,505 consecutive patients, of which 82% were men and 22.4% diabetic. At presentation, 59.6% of the patients had an acute coronary syndrome, including 21% ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All lesions were pre-dilated and in 96.8% of the cases BVS was post-dilated. At 30 days, the co-primary study end point target lesion revascularization occurred in 0.6% of patients and definite/probable BVS thrombosis in 0.8%. There were 2 cases of cardiac and overall death (0.13%). Device-oriented cardiac events occurred in 1% of the patients. In conclusion, our data of consecutive patients suggest that current use of BVS in a wide spectrum of coronary narrowings and clinical settings is associated with good outcome at 30 days.

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.

Twelve months clinical outcome after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with stable angina and acute coronary syndrome. Data from the Polish National Registry

Introduction

There are limited data describing bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation in complex lesions. Only short-term clinical outcomes are available for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Aim

To evaluate 12-month clinical outcome, safety and effectiveness of BVS implantation in complex lesions and in stable angina (SA) or ACS.

Material and methods

Five hundred ninety-one patients with SA/ACS were enrolled between October 2012 and November 2013 in 30 invasive cardiology centres in Poland. At least one BVS implantation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the only inclusion criteria. The clinical endpoint was the occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) with urgent PCI or target vessel revascularisation (TVR) with urgent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)) and device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) (cardiac death, urgent target vessel revascularisation with PCI/CABG, target vessel MI) during 12-month follow-up.

Results

After 12 months TLR with urgent PCI was significantly more often reported in patients with diagnosed UA (4.59%; p < 0.02) in comparison with other PCI indications. No significant differences were found in terms of composite MACE endpoint, cumulative MACE (p = 0.09), stent thrombosis (p = 0.2) or restenosis (p = 0.2). There were no significant differences in cumulative MACE and composite MACE endpoint between patients with no/mild versus moderate/severe tortuosity and no/mild versus moderate/severe calcification of the target vessel. No significant difference was found between groups of patients with or without bifurcation of the target vessel. Device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly more often reported in the ACS group (3.2% vs. 0.47%; p < 0.03), most frequently in patients with diagnosed UA (5.5%).

Conclusions

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold can be successfully and safely used for ACS treatment and in lesions of higher complexity.

Bioresorbable scaffold - A magic bullet for the treatment of coronary artery disease?

Today, drug-eluting metal stents are considered the gold standard for interventional treatment of coronary artery disease. While providing inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia, drug-eluting metal stents have many limitations such as the risk of late and very late stent thrombosis, restriction of vascular vasomotion and chronic local inflammatory reaction due to permanent implantation of a 'metallic cage', recognized as a foreign body. Bioresorbable scaffold stents (BRS) are a new solution, which is trying to overcome the limitation of the 'metallic cage'. This structure provides short-term scaffolding of the vessel and then disappears, leaving nothing behind. The purpose of this review is to present the theoretical rationale for the use of BRS and to outline the clinical outcomes associated with their use in terms of data obtained from RCTs, clinical trials, registries and real life use. We have also tried to answer all questions on this intervention based on available data, with a focus on ABSORB BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, USA). We consider that this new technology can be the "magic bullet" to treat coronary artery disease.