Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: 1-Year Results of a Propensity Score Matching Comparison

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in primary percutaneous coronary intervention of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of a metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) is the standard treatment for patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Implantation of a bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) during STEMI represents a novel strategy without intravascular metal.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate 12-month healing response in an STEMI population after implantation of either the Absorb BRS or Xience DES (Abbott Vascular, USA).

METHODS

The present trial was a prospective, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, noninferiority study with planned inclusion of 120 patients with STEMI. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with Absorb BRS or Xience DES. Implantation result and healing response were evaluated by angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline and 12-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was minimum flow area (MFA) assessed at 12 months. Coronary stent healing index (CSHI) was calculated from OCT images.

RESULTS

Out of 66 included patients, 58 had follow-up OCT after 12 months, and 49 entered matched analysis. One death occurred in each group; none were stent-related. MFA was 5.13 ± 1.70 mm2 (95% CI, 4.44-5.82) in the BRS group compared with 6.30 ± 2.49 mm2 (95% CI, 5.22-7.37) (P = 0.06) in the DES group. Noninferiority could not be evaluated. CSHI for both groups had a median score of 3.

CONCLUSION

The DES group performed numerically better in primary and secondary endpoints, but the CSHI showed good stent healing in both groups.

Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BRS with DES on clinical outcomes with at least 12 months follow-up. Electronic databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to 1 March 2022 were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome of this study was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Secondary outcomes were a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, all-cause death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) and the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization). The safety outcomes were definite/probable device thrombosis and adverse events.

Results

Four randomized clinical trials including 803 participants with a mean age of 60.5 ± 10.8 years were included in this analysis. Patients treated with BRS had a higher risk of the DOCE (RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02–2.57, P = 0.04) and MACE (RR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.02–3.08, P = 0.04) compared with patients treated with DES. No significant difference on the POCE (RR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.89–1.98, P = 0.16) and the definite/probable device thrombosis (RR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.46–3.77, P = 0.61) were observed between BRS and DES. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

BRS was associated with a higher risk of DOCE and MACE compared with DES in patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction. Although this seems less effective in preventing DOCE, BRS appears as safe as DES.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=321501], identifier [CRD 42022321501].

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus conventional drug-eluting stents across time: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) were designed to reduce the rate of late adverse events observed in conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) by dissolving once they have restored lasting patency.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the safety and efficacy of BVS versus DES in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease across a complete range of randomised controlled trial (RCT) follow-up intervals.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from inception through 5 January 2022 for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes of BVS versus DES. The primary safety outcome was stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST), and the primary efficacy outcome was target lesion failure (TLF: composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (ID-TLR)). Secondary outcomes were patient-oriented composite endpoint (combining all-death, all-MI and all-revascularisation), its individual components and those of TLF. Studies were appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan V.5.4.

RESULTS

11 919 patients were randomised to receive either BVS (n=6438) or DES (n=5481) across 17 trials (differing follow-up intervals from 3 months to 5 years). BVS demonstrated increased risk of ST across all timepoints (peaking at 2 years with risk ratio (RR): 3.47; 95% CI 1.80 to 6.70; p=0.0002). Similarly, they showed increased risk of TLF (peaking at 3 years, RR: 1.35; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.70; p=0.01) resulting from high rates of TVMI and ID-TLR. Though improvements were observed after device dissolution (5-year follow-up), these were non-significant. All other outcomes were statistically equivalent. Applicability to all BVS is limited by 91% of the BVS group receiving Abbott's Absorb.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that current BVS are inferior to contemporary DES throughout the first 5 years at minimum.

Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents on short- and mid-term target lesion outcomes in patients after PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

While current concerns about bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are centered on late or very late scaffold thrombosis, less attention had been paid to short- and mid-term clinical outcomes. This review aimed to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes between BRS and drug-eluting stents (DES).

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared BRS vs. DES was conducted by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases from inception until 19 April 2022 (language limited to English or Chinese). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) within 12 months, defined as a composite of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and cardiac death. The secondary outcomes were in-stent diameter stenosis (DS%) provided by intraluminal imaging.

Results

A total of 13 studies were eligible and were included in this review (N = 9,702 patients). The follow-up duration ranged from 6 months to 1 year. A significantly higher rate of TLF [RR, 1.22, 95% CI (1.03, 1.44)] driven by the higher rate of TVMI [RR, 1.39, 95% CI (1.09, 1.76)] was observed in the BRS group than in the DES group. The risk of TLR and cardiac death was similar between the groups. Also, compared with the DES group, the BRS group had a significantly higher in-stent DS% within 1 year [MD = 5.23, 95%CI (3.43, 7.04); I² = 97%; p < 0.00001].

Conclusion

Bioresorbable scaffolds were associated with an increased risk of target lesion failure within 1 year as compared with DES, driven by the increased rates of target vessel myocardial infarction. Also, the in-stent DS% seemed to be higher with BRS. Therefore, BRS was inferior to DES in terms of target lesion outcomes at short- or mid-term follow-up.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=327966, PROSPERO (CRD42022327966).

Effects of aggressive predilatation, sizing, and postdilatation strategy for coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffolds implantation

BACKGROUND

The results of the recent Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers trial showed that the predilatation, sizing, and postdilatation (PSP) technique did not lower the long-term rates of scaffold thrombosis and adverse events. We evaluated the impact of aggressive PSP bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) implantation on the short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS

From June 2014 to December 2016, 150 patients with BRS implantation were enrolled and received successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), of whom 104 received aggressive PSP technique (high-pressure predilatation and lesion preparation in addition to the traditional PSP technique). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

All patients underwent successful PCI and BRS implantation with final Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade 3 flow. The baseline and procedure characteristics were similar in both groups. Debulking techniques were used in 13 (8.7%) patients. Intracoronary imaging modalities were used in 73 (48.7%) patients. After BRS implantation, no adverse events were observed within 30 days in both groups. During the mean follow-up period of 2.98 ± 0.77 years, 12 (8.0%) patients experienced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including one cardiovascular death (0.6%), three nonfatal myocardial infarction (2.0 %), and 11 target-vessel revascularization (7.3 %). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that aggressive PSP remained an independent protective factor for MACEs. Moreover, the use of intracoronary imaging and rotablation atherectomy was associated with better clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Lesion preparation by aggressive PSP in BRS implantation was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes.

A Review on Manufacturing and Post-Processing Technology of Vascular Stents

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation is one of the most effective treatments for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, there are still many complications after stent implantation. As a medical device with a complex structure and small size, the manufacture and post-processing technology greatly impact the mechanical and medical performances of stents. In this paper, the development history, material, manufacturing method, and post-processing technology of vascular stents are introduced. In particular, this paper focuses on the existing manufacturing technology and post-processing technology of vascular stents and the impact of these technologies on stent performance is described and discussed. Moreover, the future development of vascular stent manufacturing technology will be prospected and proposed.

Application of in silico Platform for the Development and Optimization of Fully Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Designs

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), made either from polymers or from metals, are promising materials for treating coronary artery disease through the processes of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Despite the opinion that bioresorbable polymers are more promising for coronary stents, their long-term advantages over metallic alloys have not yet been demonstrated. The development of new polymer-based BVS or optimization of the existing ones requires engineers to perform many very expensive mechanical tests to identify optimal structural geometry and material characteristics. in silico mechanical testing opens the possibility for a fast and low-cost process of analysis of all the mechanical characteristics and also provides the possibility to compare two or more competing designs. In this study, we used a recently introduced material model of poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold and recently empowered numerical InSilc platform to perform in silico mechanicals tests of two different stent designs with different material and geometrical characteristics. The result of inflation, radial compression, three-point bending, and two-plate crush tests shows that numerical procedures with true experimental constitutive relationships could provide reliable conclusions and a significant contribution to the optimization and design of bioresorbable polymer-based stents.

Long-term clinical, angiographic, and optical coherence tomography findings of Mg-based bioresorbable scaffold in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients treated with magnesium-based bioresorbable scaffolds (MgBRS) in the context of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) at long-term follow-up (24 months). The study also aims to investigate the MgBRS performance by angiography and the healing and bioresorption pattern by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 18 months.

METHODS

Between December 2016 and December 2018, a total of 90 patients admitted for ACS and treated with MgBRS (Magmaris, Biotronik AG, Bülach, Switzerland) were enrolled in a multicenter prospective study. Clinical follow-up was performed in all patients at 24 months and angiographic and OCT follow-up in 51.5% of patients at 18 months. Serial OCT was available in 33 patients (36.7%).

RESULTS

At a 2-year follow-up, 88.8% were free of symptoms, no cardiac death was reported, and the device-oriented composite event (DOCE): consisting of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 13.3%. Stent thrombosis and TLR were observed in 2.2 and 11.1%, respectively. Binary restenosis was observed in 21.7% of cases and in-stent late lumen loss was 0.61 ± 0.75 mm. By serial OCT imaging, the minimal lumen area was significantly reduced greater than 40% (from 6.12 ± 1.59 to 3.5 ± 1.55 mm2, p < .001). At follow-up, area stenosis was 44.33 ± 23.07% and half of the patients presented indiscernible struts. The principal observed mechanism of restenosis was scaffold collapse.

CONCLUSIONS

At long-term follow-up, MgBRS implantation in ACS patients showed a high rate of DOCE, mainly caused by clinically driven TLR. MgBRS restenosis was caused by scaffold collapse in most of the cases.

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.

Degradation modeling of poly-l-lactide acid (PLLA) bioresorbable vascular scaffold within a coronary artery

In this work, a strain-based degradation model was implemented and validated to better understand the dynamic interactions between the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and the artery during the degradation process. Integrating the strain-modulated degradation equation into commercial finite element codes allows a better control and visualization of local mechanical parameters. Both strut thinning and discontinuity of the stent struts within an artery were captured and visualized. The predicted results in terms of mass loss and fracture locations were validated by the documented experimental observations. In addition, results suggested that the heterogeneous degradation of the stent depends on its strain distribution following deployment. Degradation is faster at the locations with higher strains and resulted in the strut thinning and discontinuity, which contributes to the continuous mass loss, and the reduced contact force between the BVS and artery. A nonlinear relationship between the maximum principal strain of the stent and the fracture time was obtained, which could be transformed to predict the degradation process of the BVS in different mechanical environments. The developed computational model provided more insights into the degradation process, which could complement the discrete experimental data for improving the design and clinical management of the BVS.

One-year efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in the setting of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

From March 2016 to October 2017, 952 patients with AMI without cardiogenic shock undergoing successful PCI with BRS (n = 136) or DP-EES (n = 816) were enrolled from a multicenter, observational Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.

RESULTS

In the crude population, there was no significant difference in the 1-year rate of device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) and device thrombosis between the BRS and DP-EES groups (2.2% vs. 4.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.41, p = 0.163; 0.7% vs. 0.5%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.16-13.4, p = 0.719, respectively). BRS implantation was opted in younger patients (53.7 vs. 62.6 years, p < 0.001) with low-risk profiles, and intravascular image-guided PCI was more preferred in the BRS group (60.3% vs. 27.2%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

At 1-year follow-up, no differences in the rate of DOCE and device thrombosis were observed between patients with AMI treated with BRS and those treated with DP-EES. Our data suggest that imaging-guided BRS implantation in young patients with low risk profiles could be a reasonable strategy in the setting of AMI.

Angiographic and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients treated with bioresorbable or metallic everolimus-eluting stents: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

AIMS

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were conceived to ensure transient coronary artery support during antiproliferative drug delivery. However, the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold was found to be inferior to everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) in moderately complex coronary anatomies. We sought to investigate whether the Absorb represents a valuable option for the percutaneous treatment of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We pooled the individual patient data of two randomised trials specifically designed to investigate the performance of Absorb versus EES in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The primary outcome was lesion (in-segment) diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. The main secondary outcome was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, target vessel MI and target lesion revascularisation at one year. A total of 388 patients with STEMI were allocated to Absorb (n=227) or EES (n=161). Angiographic follow-up at one year was available for 332 (85.6%) patients. Lesion diameter stenosis was comparable between Absorb and EES (22.8±9.8% versus 23.6±11.2%; mean difference -0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.18-1.48, p=0.47). DOCE occurred in 21 patients at one year, with similar distribution between the Absorb and EES groups (5.3% versus 5.6%; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI: 0.40-2.26, p=0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis provides evidence for a comparable angiographic performance and suggests similar clinical performance of Absorb and EES in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous revascularisation. The long-term durability of Absorb and the extent to which newer BRS platforms might have a potential role in STEMI deserve further investigation. Both trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01942070 and NCT01986803).

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 5-year results of the BVS-EXAMINATION study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare five-year clinical outcomes between an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in STEMI patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This observational and retrospective study included 235 consecutive STEMI patients treated with BRS, compared with 235 STEMI patients treated with EES from the EXAMINATION trial, by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at five-year follow-up. Device thrombosis, according to the ARC criteria, was also evaluated. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis was also performed at five years in event-free BRS patients. The cumulative incidence of five-year DOCE was higher in the BRS group as compared to the EES group (13.2% vs 7.6%, HR 1.87, 95% CI: 0.94-3.44, p=0.071), mainly driven by a higher rate of TLR (7.6% vs 1.7%, HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.44-2.30, p=0.004). The five-year definite BRS thrombosis rate was also higher as compared to EES (4.2% vs 1.2%, HR 3.49, 95% CI: 0.95-12.82, p=0.054). OCT analysis showed a high incidence of neoatherosclerosis in the BRS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The five-year event risk was higher with BRS versus EES in STEMI. This suggests that the probability of obtaining favourable results at very long-term follow-up is low. Whether better results will be obtained with new-generation BVS remains to be determined.

Bioresorbable scaffold implantation in STEMI patients: 5 years imaging subanalysis of PRAGUE-19 study

Background

Bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) Absorb™ clinical use has been stopped due to higher rate of device thrombosis. Scaffold struts persist longer than 2 years in the vessel wall. Second generation devices are being developed. This study evaluates long-term invasive imaging in STEMI patients.

Methods

PRAGUE-19 study is an academic study enrolling consecutive STEMI patients with intention to implant Absorb™ BRS. A total of 83 STEMI patients between December 2012 and March 2014 fulfilled entry criteria. Coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography at 5 year follow-up was performed in 25 patients.

Results

Primary combined clinical endpoint (death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization) occurred in 12.6% during the five-year follow-up with overall mortality 6.3%. Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 2 patients in the early phase after BRS implantation. Quantitative coronary angiography after 5 years demonstrated low late lumen loss of 0.11 ± 0.35 mm with binary restenosis rate of 0%. Optical coherence tomography demonstrated complete resorption of scaffold struts and mean lumen diameter of 3.25 ± 0.30 and 3.22 ± 0.49 (P = 0.73) at baseline and after 5 years, respectively. Three patients developed small coronary artery aneurysm in the treated segment.

Conclusion

Invasive imaging results 5 years after BRS implantation in STEMI showed complete resorption of scaffold struts and stable lumen vessel diameter.

Trial registration ISRCTN43696201 (retrospectivelly registred, June 7th, 2019). https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN43696201.

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds-Dead End or Still a Rough Diamond?

Percutaneous coronary interventions with stent-based restorations of vessel patency have become the gold standard in the treatment of acute coronary states. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been designed to combine the efficiency of drug-eluting stents (DES) at the time of implantation and the advantages of a lack of foreign body afterwards. Complete resolution of the scaffold was intended to enable the restoration of vasomotor function and reduce the risk of device thrombosis. While early reports demonstrated superiority of BVS over DES, larger-scale application and longer observation exposed major concerns about their use, including lower radial strength and higher risk of thrombosis resulting in higher rate of major adverse cardiac events. Further focus on procedural details and research on the second generation of BVS with novel properties did not allow to unequivocally challenge position of DES. Nevertheless, BVS still have a chance to present superiority in distinctive indications. This review presents an outlook on the available first and second generation BVS and a summary of results of clinical trials on their use. It discusses explanations for unfavorable outcomes, proposed enhancement techniques and a potential niche for the use of BVS.

Finite element evaluation of artery damage in deployment of polymeric stent with pre- and post-dilation

Using finite element method, this paper evaluates damage in an arterial wall and plaque caused by percutaneous coronary intervention. Hyperelastic damage models, calibrated with experimental results, are used to describe stress–stretch responses of arterial layers and plaque; these models are capable to simulate softening behaviour of the tissue due to damage. Abaqus CAE is employed to create the finite element models for the artery wall (with media and adventitia layers), a symmetric uniform plaque, a bioresorbable polymeric stent and a tri-folded expansion balloon. The effect of percutaneous coronary intervention on vessel damage is investigated by simulating the processes of vessel pre-dilation, stent deployment and post-stenting dilation. Energy dissipation density is used to assess the extent of damage in the tissue. Softening of the plaque and the artery, due to the pre-dilation-induced damage, can facilitate the subsequent stent deployment process. The plaque and the artery experienced heterogeneous damage behaviour after the stent deployment, caused by non-uniform deformation. The post-stenting dilation was effective to achieve a full expansion of the stent, but caused additional damage to the artery. The continuous and discontinuous damage models yielded similar results in the percutaneous coronary intervention simulations, while the incorporation of plaque rupture affected the simulated outcomes of stent deployment. The computational evaluation of the artery damage can be potentially used to assess the risk of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention.

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.

Impact of Absorb bioresorbable scaffold implantation technique on post-procedural quantitative coronary angiographic endpoints in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a sub-analysis of the BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study

AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) implantation technique on post-procedural quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) parameters in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed 442 STEMI patients who underwent BRS implantation in the BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study. Optimal BRS implantation was assessed using the PSP score, developed and validated in the GHOST-EU registry. We analysed post-implantation QCA parameters, including minimum lumen diameter (MLD) and maximum footprint, in patients with and without optimal BRS implantation, coded as maximum PSP score. Patients with optimal BRS implantation had higher post-procedural MLD and lower maximum footprint than those without. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that optimal BRS implantation was an independent predictor of high post-procedural MLD, defined as ≥2.4 mm for 2.5 or 3.0 mm BRS and ≥2.8 mm for 3.5 mm BRS. Thrombectomy before optimal BRS implantation showed a trend towards higher post-procedural MLD and lower maximum footprint. There was no relationship between optimal BRS implantation and device-oriented composite events at one year.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal BRS implantation, as assessed by PSP score, was associated with better post-procedural QCA parameters in STEMI. Thrombectomy before optimal BRS implantation might improve angiographic results in STEMI. Long-term follow-up is needed to analyse the relationship between QCA parameters and clinical outcomes after BRS implantation in STEMI patients.

Clinical outcomes at 2 years of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the Xience drug-eluting metallic stent in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome versus stable coronary disease-AIDA trial substudy

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.

Predictors of bioresorbable scaffold failure in STEMI patients at 3 years follow-up

BACKGROUND

Little data are available on the long-term outcomes of bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study is to investigate three-years outcomes and predictors of BRS failure in patients presenting with STEMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two prospective, single-arm registries were pooled. Incidence and predictors of clinical outcome were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. From May-2012 to January-2015, 183 STEMI patients (58 ± 13 years, 77% males, 29% diabetics) who received a total of 256 BRS (1.4 ± 0.8 per patient) were included. 248 patients (65 ± 11 years, 74% males, 27% diabetics) treated for stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) served as control. 3-years follow-up was available in 386 (90%) patients. Device-oriented composite endpoint and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) rates were similar in the two groups (STEMI: 11.5% vs SCAD: 12.9%, P = 0.84; STEMI: 3.6% vs SCAD: 3.3%, P = 0.90). While early ScT was more frequent in SCAD patients, late/very late ScT was a feature of STEMI. While in STEMI patients the incidence of ScT was higher in vessels with RVD > 3.5 mm, a RVD < 2.5 mm was a predictor of events in stable patients. Similarly, BRS undersizing predicted events in STEMI patients, while oversizing was a predictor in stable ones. Finally, the incidence of ScT was reduced in both STEMI and stable patients (from 6.3% to 0% and from 5.80% to 0.9%) when an optimized implantation technique was used.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of events for three years follow-up was similar in STEMI and SCAD patients, although different timing and features underlie ScT in the two groups.

Trials Comparing Percutaneous And Surgical Myocardial Revascularization: A Review

INTRODUCTION

Ischemic heart diseases are the major leading cause of death worldwide. Revascularization procedures dramatically reduced the overall risk for death related to acute coronary syndromes. Two kinds of myocardial revascularization can grossly be outlined: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical coronary artery bypass graft intervention (CABG). The net clinical benefit coming from these two kinds of procedures is still under debate.

METHODS

We have traced the state-of-the-art background about myocardial revascularization procedures by comparing the most important trials dealing with the evaluation of percutaneous interventions versus a surgical approach to coronary artery diseases.

RESULTS

Both PCI and CABG have become effective treatments for revascularization of patients suffering from advanced CAD. The advance in technology and procedural techniques made PCI an attractive and, to some extent, more reliable procedure in the context of CAD. However, there are still patients that cannot undergo PCI and have to be rather directed towards CABG.

CONCLUSION

CABG still remains the best strategy for the treatment of multiple vessel CAD due to improved results in term of survival and freedom from reintervention. Anyway, a systematic, multidisciplinary approach to revascularization is the fundamental behaviour to be chased in order to effectively help the patients in overcoming its diseases. The creation of the "heart team" seems to be a good option for the correct treatment of patients suffering from stable and unstable CAD.

"The Unpredictable ABSORB" - Very Late Stent Thrombosis of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds represent the next revolution in stent technology. They serve the dual purpose of antiproliferative drug delivery to vascular lumen like a drug-eluting stents (DES) as well as phased strut resorption over time leading to virtual elimination of stent thrombosis. The ABSORB GT-1 stent was the prototype bioresrbable vascular scaffold with maximum clinical experience and initial promising results. However, reports of stent thrombosis emerged with ABSORB too. Although the use of intracoronary imaging and proper implantation technique has the potential to reduce stent thrombosis rates, the device has been withdrawn from the market for now. We report a case of late stent thrombosis with ABSORB which was managed with DES-supported intracoronary imaging.

Major coronary evaginations following implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - Clinical and OCT characteristics

BACKGROUND

Coronary evaginations can occur after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and may be associated with scaffold thrombosis. Aim of this study was to clarify the clinical manifestation, extent and time course of coronary artery remodeling in vessel segments that develop angiographically detectable evaginations following BRS implantation through optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis.

METHODS

In 8 patients, 10 BRS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) which displayed coronary evaginations in clinically driven late invasive coronary angiograms were identified and findings were compared to 10 BRS in 8 patients without coronary evaginations. Vessel and device geometry was analyzed in serial OCT cross-sections at a spacing of 200 μm. Measured BRS dimensions were normalized to the reference vessel size at implantation.

RESULTS

In OCT, major evaginations on average affected 24 ± 19% of the scaffold length. Scaffolds with major evaginations had a significantly larger lumen area than scaffolds without evaginations (mean normalized lumen area 1.19 ± 0.58 vs. 0.77 ± 0.38; p < 0.001), and also displayed a significantly larger scaffold area (mean normalized scaffold area: 1.36 ± 0.6 vs. 1.13 ± 0.43; p < 0.001), and scaffold diameter (mean normalized scaffold diameter: 1.17 ± 0.33 vs.1.04 ± 0.19; p < 0.001). Lumen area (r = 0.47; p < 0.001), scaffold area (r = 0.52; p < 0.001), and scaffold diameter (r = 0.74; p < 0.001) in the evagination group were positively correlated to the time since scaffold implantation.

CONCLUSION

Coronary evaginations following BRS implantation are associated with an increased scaffold area, indicating that the scaffold follows the outward remodeling of the artery. The process affects the entire scaffold length and seems to be continuously progressing following implantation.

Planned use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors is safe and effective during implantation of the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) have the potential for adaptive vessel remodeling, restoration of vasomotion, and late luminal enlargement, thus allowing them to circumvent target lesion failures associated with bare metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES). However, recent data has shown a concerning increase in BVS-associated scaffold thrombosis (ScT) compared to DES. Upfront administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) has shown to reduce early stent thrombosis (ST) compared to standard of care in BMS and DES. Since the use of GPIs was limited in BVS studies, the effect of GPIs on the rate of BVS-associated ScT is largely unknown. This is the first study investigating whether a planned use of GPIs during implantation of the Absorb BVS represents a safe and effective strategy in reducing ScT. In a retrospective chart review of 22 patients undergoing PCI with BVS implantation and planned GPI administration, no acute ScT, in-hospital MACE, or in-hospital major/minor bleeding events were observed. Bleeding reduction strategies such as shorter GPI infusion and radial access were implemented. This study provides valuable preliminary evidence on the benefit and safety in using planned GPI administration to reduce the incidence of ScT after implantation of BVS.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes After Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) may represent an intriguing clinical scenario for implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS). Nevertheless, the knowledge about the performance of these devices in patients with ACS is limited. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of clinical studies aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting-BRS versus everolimus-eluting-metallic stents (EES) in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Six studies enrolling 2,318 patients were included and analyzed for the risk of primary safety outcome (stent or scaffold thrombosis [ST/ScT]), primary efficacy outcome (target lesion revascularisation [TLR]), and secondary outcomes (myocardial infarction, cardiac death, all-cause death). Median follow-up was 9.5 (6 to 19.5) months. Patients treated with BRS had a significantly higher risk of definite ST/ScT compared with those receiving EES (2.3% vs 1.08%, odds ratio [OR] 2.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 4.45, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%). Similarly, the risk of TLR was significantly higher in the BRS compared with EES group (3.5% vs 2.5%, OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.16, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). When TLRs due to thrombosis were excluded, the difference in risk estimates between the 2 groups was no longer significant (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.98, p = 0.71, I2 = 25%). Risk for secondary endpoints did not differ between the 2 groups. Results were confirmed when clinical and procedural variables were tested as potential effect modifiers in the meta-regression analysis for both primary endpoints. In conclusion, compared with those receiving EES, patients with ACS treated with BRS had increased risk of definite device thrombosis and TLR at mid-term follow-up.

Twelve-month outcomes after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Data from the European Multicenter GHOST-EU Extended Registry

AIMS

The aim of this study was to report on the midterm outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and compare with those of patients with stable coronary artery disease (sCAD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

One thousand four hundred and seventy-seven (1,477) patients underwent implantation of one or more BVS (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) at 11 European centres and were included in the GHOST-EU registry. Admissions comprised 47.1% of the patients (951 BVS) with ACS, and 52.8% (1,274 BVS) with sCAD. During a median follow-up of 384 (359-460) days, patient-oriented endpoints (PoCE), including all-cause death, any infarction, any revascularisation, were recorded in 271 patients (12-month incidence in ACS patients: 18.5% vs. 11.6% in the sCAD group, p<0.001). Device-oriented composite endpoints (DoCE), cardiac death, target vessel infarction and target lesion revascularisation, were observed in 98 patients (12-month incidence of 4.2% in the sCAD group, 6.4% in the ACS group; p=0.052). The 12-month incidence of definite scaffold thrombosis was 2.6% in ACS patients and 0.8% in XIENCE patients (p=0.006). In multivariate analysis, ACS was a predictor of DoCE (HR: 2.26 [1.34-3.81], p=0.002), PoCE (HR: 1.71 [1.13-2.58], p=0.011), and stent thrombosis (HR: 2.51 [1.13-5.60], p=0.025). In contrast, the incidence of target lesion revascularisation was not different between groups. There was no difference in the incidence of any of these endpoints among the different clinical presentations (unstable angina, non-ST-elevation infarction and ST-elevation infarction).

CONCLUSIONS

PoCE, DoCE and scaffold thromboses were more frequent in ACS patients, without any difference among different forms of ACS.

Long-term outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold in ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) implantation in selected patients with stable angina has been demonstrated feasible and safe. However, limited data are currently available on long-term outcomes after BVS implantation for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Therefore, we sought to assess the safety, efficacy and long-term results of BVS implantation in STEMI patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all STEMI patients treated with the Absorb^® BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) or conventional drug eluting stent (DES) between 1 April 2013 and 30 March 2014. Primary outcomes were procedural success, device thrombosis and device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization. The study included 54 BVS patients and 121 DES patients.

RESULTS

Patients were slightly younger in the BVS group (60 vs. 63 years old, p = .03). Other baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Procedural success was achieved in all patients. Median follow-up was 901 days and 849 days for BVS and DES patients, respectively (p = .01). The cumulative incidence of DOCE was not significantly different between the BVS and DES groups (7.5% vs. 9.1%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-2.2], p = NS). Rate of probable/definite device thrombosis were not statistically different between both groups (3.7% vs. 3.3%, p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this single-centre retrospective study, one of the first assessing long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in STEMI, seems reassuring with similar long-term results as compared with patients treated with conventional DES.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the long-term efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents are limited. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the long-term outcomes with both devices.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomized trials reporting clinical outcomes beyond 1 year and comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting stents were included. Summary estimates risk ratios (RRs) were constructed. The primary efficacy outcome was target lesion failure, defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and the primary safety outcome was definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis. Six trials with 5392 patients were included (mean follow-up, 25 months). BVS had a higher rate of target lesion failure (RR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.58) driven by the higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26-2.17) and target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-1.78). The risk of definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis (RR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.89-5.49) and very late stent/scaffold thrombosis (>1 year; RR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.66-13.8) was higher with BVS. The risk of cardiac and all-cause mortality was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with everolimus-eluting stents, BVS is associated with increased risk of target lesion failure driven by the increased rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization in these studies (mean follow-up, 25 months). The risk of definite or probable stent/scaffold thrombosis and very late stent/scaffold thrombosis seems to be higher with BVS. Further information from randomized trials is critical to evaluate clinical outcomes with BVS on complete resolution of the scaffold.

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Korean Expert Panel Report

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) is an innovative device that provides structural support and drug release to prevent early recoil or restenosis, and then degrades into nontoxic compounds to avoid late complications related with metallic drug-eluting stents (DESs). BRS has several putative advantages. However, recent randomized trials and registry studies raised clinical concerns about the safety and efficacy of first generation BRS. In addition, the general guidance for the optimal practice with BRS has not been suggested due to limited long-term clinical data in Korea. To address the safety and efficacy of BRS, we reviewed the clinical evidence of BRS implantation, and suggested the appropriate criteria for patient and lesion selection, scaffold implantation technique, and management.

Thirty-Day and One-Year Clinical Outcomes of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Implantation: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Available data on the use of the Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) in real-world patients is limited, particularly in Asian populations. The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes of patients treated with a BVS in real-world practice in Taiwan.

Methods

This study focused on 156 patients with coronary artery disease and a total of 249 lesions who received BVS implantation from October 2012 to October 2015. The study's primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (MACE), such as a myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), definite or possible scaffold thrombosis, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality during the thirty-day follow-up period. The secondary endpoint was MACE during the one-year follow-up period. Additionally, the composite clinical secondary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), which was called device-oriented composite endpoint.

Results

The average age of the patients was 60.34 ± 10.15 years, and 81.4% were male. The average of Syntax score was 12.42 ± 8.77 points. 44.2 % lesions were type B2 or C. At 31 days, one patient experienced a MACE (1/156) the composite of two TLF (2/249) with ST elevation MI, which was related to scaffold thrombosis. At one-year, 5.1 % (8/156) of the patients experienced a MACE and 3.6% (9/249) of the lesions experienced a TLF. There was no cardiovascular or all-cause mortality in the 30-day follow-up. The one-year cardiovascular and all-cause mortality rates were each 1.3%, respectively. Diabetes, ostial lesion, bifurcation lesion, and non-standard dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) were the strong associations of one-year TLF.

Conclusions

Even with difficult and complex lesions of patients in this study, acceptable outcomes were achieved with low definite or possible scaffold thrombosis rates after BVS implantation. And despite anatomical issues, it is important to complete standard DAPT.

Coronary Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Use in the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) represent a promising novel approach for the treatment of coronary artery disease. BVS promise to address some of the well-known limitations of current drug-eluting stents, while providing a transient scaffolding of the vessel to prevent acute vessel closure/recoil. Drug elution by BVS prevents neointimal proliferation in a similar fashion to drug-eluting stents, and complete bioresorption is associated with late vessel lumen enlargement, plaque regression, and restoration of vasomotion. Based on the pathophysiological reasons and on the results derived from clinical studies, BVS are increasingly being used in clinical practice. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current evidence supporting the use of BVS in clinical practice. In particular, we will discuss the randomized controlled trials and registries evaluating the clinical outcome of these devices, with a special focus on their application in patients with acute coronary syndrome and in specific lesion subsets (bifurcations, chronic total occlusions, and in-stent restenosis).

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.

Automated Segmentation of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Struts in Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography Images

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), the next step in the continuum of minimally invasive vascular interventions present new opportunities for patients and clinicians but challenges as well. As they are comprised of polymeric materials standard imaging is challenging. This is especially problematic as modalities like optical coherence tomography (OCT) become more prevalent in cardiology. OCT, a light-based intracoronary imaging technique, provides cross-sectional images of plaque and luminal morphology. Until recently segmentation of OCT images for BVS struts was performed manually by experts. However, this process is time consuming and not tractable for large amounts of patient data. Several automated methods exist to segment metallic stents, which do not apply to the newer BVS. Given this current limitation coupled with the emerging popularity of the BVS technology, it is crucial to develop an automated methodology to segment BVS struts in OCT images. The objective of this paper is to develop a novel BVS strut detection method in intracoronary OCT images. First, we preprocess the image to remove imaging artifacts. Then, we use a K-means clustering algorithm to automatically segment the image. Finally, we isolate the stent struts from the rest of the image. The accuracy of the proposed method was evaluated using expert estimations on 658 annotated images acquired from 7 patients at the time of coronary arterial interventions. Our proposed methodology has a positive predictive value of 0.93, a Pearson Correlation coefficient of 0.94, and a F1 score of 0.92. The proposed methodology allows for rapid, accurate, and fully automated segmentation of BVS struts in OCT images.