Efficacy and Safety of the Absorb Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold for Treatment of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Results of the Absorb Diabetic Substudy

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.

Biodegradable Polymer DES (Ultimaster) vs. Magnesium Bioresorbable Scaffold (BRS Magmaris) in Diabetic Population with NSTE-ACS: A One-Year Clinical Outcome of Two Sirolimus-Eluting Stents

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) with significant involvement of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a major cause of death and disability among the diabetic population. Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to evolve, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a well-established marker of poor clinical prognosis after PCI, which is mainly attributed to the rapid progression of atherosclerosis requiring recurrent revascularizations. Hence, the use of bioresorbable materials could provide some solution to this problem. Material and Methods. The study was divided into two arms. For the first one, we qualified 169 patients with NSTE-ACS treated with PCI who received the drug-eluting stent (DES) coated with a biodegradable polymer Ultimaster (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan). The second arm was composed of 193 patients with ACS who underwent PCI with a magnesium bioresorbable scaffold Magmaris (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany). Both arms were divided into two subsequent groups: the T2DM (59 and 72) and the non-DM (110 and 121, respectively). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and in-stent thrombosis. The main secondary outcomes included target lesion failure (TLF) and were recorded at a 1-year-follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the diabetic and nondiabetic populations in primary endpoints or main secondary endpoints (TLF, scaffold restenosis, death from any reason, and other cardiovascular events) either in the Ultimaster or Magmaris group. At a 1-year-follow-up, the primary endpoint in the DM t.2 population was recorded in 2.7% Ultimaster vs. 5.1% Magmaris, respectively. At the same time, the TLF occurred in the diabetic group in 4.1% Magmaris and 3.3% in the Ultimaster arm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both, Ultimaster and Magmaris revealed relative safety and efficiency at a one-year follow-up in the diabetic population in ACS settings. The observed rates of TLF were low, which combined with a lack of in-stent thrombosis suggests that both investigated devices might be an interesting therapeutic option for diabetics with ACS. Nevertheless, further large randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm fully our results.

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.

Comparison of Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Bioresorbable Scaffolds between Patients with and without Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk of cardiovascular events. Bioresorbable stent frame materials capable of providing mechanical support and drug-delivery functions have been developed in an attempt to improve long-term outcomes. However, publications about the long-term outcomes of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) in DM patients are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of BRS between patients with and without diabetes.

METHODS

Data regarding BRS placement in consecutive patients receiving percutaneous coronary interventions were collected from the cardiovascular center of a single tertiary medical center from 2014 to 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 138 cases were included and followed up for 4 years. The mortality rate was 1.1% in the non-diabetic group and 4.1% in the diabetic group (p = 0.2542). No cardiac mortality was observed. One patient had an acute myocardial infarction (0.7%) in the non-diabetic group. The rate of target lesion revascularization was 3.4% in the non-diabetic group and 4.08% in the diabetic group. The ratio of target vessel revascularization was 6.74% in the non-diabetic group and 4.1% in the diabetic group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated no significant difference in long-term outcomes after BRS implantation between patients with and without diabetes in a single tertiary medical center.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) patients show higher rates of repeat revascularisation even in the era of modern drug-eluting stents (DES). The concept of bioresorbable scaffolds is becoming captivating, as it might allow for repeat interventions, prolonging the time span during which patients can be treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

AIMS

We intend to evaluate the short- and long-term safety and efficacy of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb BVS) in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in DM patients for any indication.

METHODS

The ABSORB DM Benelux is an international prospective study in DM patients who have undergone PCI with ≥1 Absorb BVS. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year was the primary endpoint, defined as a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction (MI) and ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Secondary endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF) and definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT).

RESULTS

Between April 2015 and March 2017, 150 DM patients and 188 non-complex lesions were treated. Device implantation was successful in 100%. MACE occurred in 14 (9.5%) patients, with all-cause death occurring in 4 (2.7%), any MI in 6 (4.1%) and ischaemia-driven TVR in 7 (4.8%) respectively. TLF was reported in 11 (7.5%). Definite and probable ScT was observed in 2 (1.4%).

CONCLUSION

Absorb BVS for treatment of anatomically low-risk patients with DM show acceptable safety and efficacy outcomes at 1 year. If these promising results are confirmed after a longer follow-up period, new-generation bioresorbable scaffolds combined with refinement of implantation techniques might open new horizons for CAD treatment in DM patients.

Impact of strut dimensions and vessel caliber on thrombosis risk of bioresorbable scaffolds using hemodynamic metrics

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) promise to be the treatment of choice for stenosed coronary vessels. But higher thrombosis risk found in current clinical studies limits the expectations. Three hemodynamic metrics are introduced to evaluate the thrombosis risk of coronary stents/scaffolds using transient computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The principal phenomena are platelet activation and effective diffusion (platelet shear number, PSN), convective platelet transport (platelet convection number, PCN) and platelet aggregation (platelet aggregation number, PAN) were taken into consideration. In the present study, two different stent designs (thick-strut vs. thin-strut design) positioned in small- and medium-sized vessels (reference vessel diameter, RVD=2.25 mm vs. 2.70 mm) were analyzed. In both vessel models, the thick-strut design induced higher PSN, PCN and PAN values than the thin-strut design (thick-strut vs. thin-strut: PSN=2.92/2.19 and 0.54/0.30; PCN=3.14/1.15 and 2.08/0.43; PAN: 14.76/8.19 and 20.03/10.18 for RVD=2.25 mm and 2.70 mm). PSN and PCN are increased by the reduction of the vessel size (PSN: RVD=2.25 mm vs. 2.70 mm=5.41 and 7.30; PCN: RVD=2.25 mm vs. 2.70 mm=1.51 and 2.67 for thick-strut and thin-strut designs). The results suggest that bulky stents implanted in small caliber vessels may substantially increase the thrombosis risk. Moreover, sensitivity analyses imply that PSN is mostly influenced by vessel size (lesion-related factor), whereas PCN and PAN sensitively respond to strut-thickness (device-related factor).

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for treatment of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus: the midterm follow-up of the prospective ABSORB DM Benelux study

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) remains challenging even with modern drug-eluting stents (DES) due to high rates of repeat revascularization. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (EE-BRS) might allow for repeat intervention prolonging the time interval of percutaneous treatment options.

Methods

The ABSORB DM Benelux Study is a dedicated prospective, international study to evaluate the midterm safety and efficacy of EE-BRS in DM patients. All DM patients that received ≥ 1 EE-BRS for any indication were enrolled and prospectively followed. Study endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR); target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death (CD), target vessel MI, and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), as well as definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT).

Results

Between April 2015 till March 2017, 150 DM patients and 188 lesions were treated and followed up to 3 years. Device implantation success was 100%. MACE occurred in 15.2% (event rate of 8.8 per 100 PY). TLF was reported in 11.7% (7.0 events per 100 PY). CD, target vessel MI, ischemic-driven TLR occurred in 3.4%, 3.6% and 5.5% respectively, while ScT was observed in 1.4%. There were no occurrences of late or very late ScT.

Conclusion

EE-BRS treatment in DM patients shows comparable midterm safety and efficacy outcomes when historically compared with modern DES. New-generation EE-BRS might offer an attractive alternative to metallic DES in treatment of fast progressing atherosclerosis population as in DM patients.

Trial registration NTR5447. Registered 05 October 2015, retrospectively registered

Percutaneous coronary interventions with the Absorb Bioresorbable vascular scaffold in real life: 1-year results from the FRANCE ABSORB registry

BACKGROUND

Several randomized studies have shown that bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) technology is associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis.

AIM

This study aimed to assess the rates of adverse outcomes at 1 year in patients treated with the Absorb BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA), using data from a large nationwide prospective multicentre registry (FRANCE ABSORB).

METHODS

All patients receiving the Absorb BVS in France were included prospectively in the study. Predilatation, optimal sizing and postdilatation were recommended systematically. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Secondary endpoints were scaffold thrombosis and target vessel revascularization at 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 2072 patients at 86 centres were included: mean age 55±11 years; 80% men. The indication was acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in 49% of cases. Predilatation and postdilatation were done in 93% and 83% of lesions, respectively. At 1 year, the primary endpoint occurred in 3.9% of patients, the rate of scaffold thrombosis was 1.5% and the rate of target vessel revascularization was 3.3%. In a multivariable analysis, diabetes and total Absorb BVS length>30mm were independently associated with the occurrence of the primary endpoint, whereas oral anticoagulation and total Absorb BVS length>30mm were independently associated with occurrence of scaffold thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The Absorb BVS was implanted in a relatively young population, half of whom had ACS. Predilatation and postdilatation rates were high, and 1-year outcomes were acceptable.

Three-years outcomes of diabetic patients treated with coronary bioresorbable scaffolds

Background

Diabetes is among the strongest predictors of outcome after coronary artery stenting and the incidence of negative outcomes is still high in this specific group. Data of long-term outcomes comparing diabetic patients with non-diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds are still incomplete. This work evaluates the long-term outcomes after implantation of a coronary bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetics.

Methods

Patients who received at least one Absorb BRS in the time of May 2012 to December 2014 were enrolled into this single-center registry. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed.

Results

Six hundred fifty seven patients including 138 patients (21%, mean age 65 ± 11, 78% male) with diabetes were enrolled.

Patients in the diabetic group were significantly older, were more likely to suffer from hypertension and hyperlipidemia and had more often a prior stroke or TIA as well as a reduced renal function (all P < 0.05). The initial stenosis was less severe in the diabetic group (74.8% vs. 79.6%, P = 0.036), but the residual stenosis after BRS implantation exceeded that of the control group (16.7% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.006).

History of diabetes had no impact on the incidence of events within one year after BRS implantation. Beyond 1 year, diabetic patients had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death (6.9 vs. 1.4%, HR:5.37 [1.33–21.71], P = 0.001), scaffold restenosis (17.6 vs. 7.8%, HR:3.56 [1.40–9.05], P < 0.0001) and target lesion revascularization (P = 0.016). These results were confirmed in the propensity score analysis.

In both diabetics and non-diabetics, there was a strong association (HR:18.6 [4.7–73.3]) between the risk of restenosis and the technique used at implantation; in contrast, the impact of vessel size was more manifest in non-diabetics than in diabetic patients, and an increased risk of restenosis was demonstrated for both large and small vessels.

Conclusion

As for metal stents, beyond one year after implantation, diabetes was associated with an increased incidence of scaffold restenosis and related outcomes. This negative impact of diabetes was reset when an optimal implantation technique was used.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-018-0811-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus treated with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: a subanalysis of the European Multicentre GHOST-EU Registry

BACKGROUND

Data on the clinical performance of bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are still limited. The present study reported 1-year clinical outcomes associated with the use of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) in DM patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a subanalysis from the GHOST-EU (Gauging coronary Healing with biOresorbable Scaffolding plaTforms in Europe) multicenter retrospective registry including patients treated with Absorb BVS between November 2011 and September 2014. In this study, a comparative analysis stratified according to DM was performed. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the combination of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically-driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR). A total of 1,477 patients were treated with 2,224 Absorb BVS; 381 (25.8%) and 1,096 (74.2%) patients were with and without DM, respectively. The 1-year rate of TLF was higher among patients with DM (7.8%) than those without DM (4.3%); the increase in TLF was driven by TLR (6.5% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.009); no significant differences in cardiac death (1.1% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.68) and target-vessel MI (3.1% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.38) were observed, respectively. Definite/probable scaffold thrombosis rate tended to be higher among patients with DM than those without DM (3.0% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.14, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Absorb BVS use in patients with DM was associated with increased 1-year TLF and scaffold thrombosis compared with non-diabetes patients.

Neoatherosclerosis development following bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in diabetic and non-diabetic swine

Background

DM remains a risk factor for poor outcome after stent-implantation, but little is known if and how DM affects the vascular response to BVS.

Aim

The aim of our study was to examine coronary responses to bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in swine with and without diabetes mellitus fed a ‘fast-food’ diet (FF-DM and FF-NDM, respectively) by sequential optical coherence tomography (OCT)-imaging and histology.

Methods

Fifteen male swine were evaluated. Eight received streptozotocin-injection to induce DM. After 9 months (M), 32 single BVS were implanted in epicardial arteries with a stent to artery (S/A)-ratio of 1.1:1 under quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and OCT guidance. Lumen, scaffold, neointimal coverage and composition were assessed by QCA, OCT and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) pre- and/or post-procedure, at 3M and 6M. Additionally, polarization-sensitive (PS)-OCT was performed in 7 swine at 6M. After sacrifice at 3M and 6M, histology and polymer degradation analysis were performed.

Results

Late lumen loss was high (~60%) within the first 3M after BVS-implantation (P<0.01 FF-DM vs. FF-NDM) and stabilized between 3M and 6M (<5% change in FF-DM, ~10% in FF-NDM; P>0.20). Neointimal coverage was highly heterogeneous in all swine (DM vs. NDM P>0.05), with focal lipid accumulation, irregular collagen distribution and neointimal calcification. Likewise, polymer mass loss was low (~2% at 3M, ~5% at 6M;P>0.20) and not associated with DM or inflammation.

Conclusion

Scaffold coverage showed signs of neo-atherosclerosis in all FF-DM and FF-NDM swine, scaffold polymer was preserved and the vascular response to BVS was not influenced by diabetes.

Current concepts on coronary revascularization using BRS in patients with diabetes and small vessels disease

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and small vessel (SV) disease are two major predictors of adverse outcome in patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even when last generation metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) are used. Bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) technology has been recently developed to overcome the disadvantages of metallic DES due to their permanent struts. Through the resorption process, BRS may provide a vascular restoration that appears very attractive especially when distal or diffusely diseased coronary segments are involved, as in diabetic patients and SV disease. However, robust evidence on the use of BRS in diabetics is lacking, and recent data have raised concerns on the use of BRS in SVs, particularly when reference vessel diameter (RVD) is <2.25 mm. This review aims at summarizing current evidence related to the use of BRS in diabetics and SV disease.

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.