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

Stent Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From Bare-Metal to the Last Generation of Drug-Eluting Stents

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1986, different types of coronary stents have been developed and become available for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but harmful complication after percutaneous coronary implantation, with a high occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and risk of mortality. Among several procedural and clinical predictors, the type of coronary stent is a strong determinant of ST. This article reviews the available evidence on the most used coronary stent types in the modern era and the related risk of ST.

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.

Current perspectives on bioresorbable scaffolds in coronary intervention and other fields

Introduction: The first-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) had a large strut profile to compensate for the insufficient radial strength of bioresorbable polymer materials, resulting in higher scaffold thrombosis rates than conventional drug-eluting stents. To improve the clinical safety and efficacy, the new generation BRSs have been improved by optimal structure design, post-processing of bioresorbable polymer materials, or altering bioresorbable metallic alloys.Areas covered: This review summarizes the lessons learned from the first-generation BRS, updates the clinical outcomes of trials evaluating ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold at long-term and bioresorbable metallic alloy-based devices, and examines recent outcomes of BRS treated in STEMI patients. This review also provides an overview of the current clinical data of seven BRSs manufactured in Asia, and of the BRSs extended application in other clinical arenas.Expert opinion: Drawbacks of the first-generation BRSs need to be addressed by the next generation of these stents with novel materials and technologies. Clinical research, including randomized controlled trials, are required to further evaluate BRSs application in coronary artery disease. The encouraging results of BRSs innovation applied in the peripheral arteries and gastrointestinal tracts support other potential clinical applications of BRS technology.

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.

Stent Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From Bare-Metal to the Last Generation of Drug-Eluting Stents

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1986, different types of coronary stents have been developed and become available for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but harmful complication after percutaneous coronary implantation, with a high occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and risk of mortality. Among several procedural and clinical predictors, the type of coronary stent is a strong determinant of ST. This article reviews the available evidence on the most used coronary stent types in the modern era and the related risk of ST.

Five Years Outcomes and Predictors of Events in a Single-Center Cohort of Patients Treated with Bioresorbable Coronary Vascular Scaffolds

Introduction: We report outcome data of patients treated with coronary bioresorbable scaffolds up to 5 years and investigate predictors of adverse events. Methods: Consecutive patients treated with at least one coronary bioresorbable scaffold (BRS, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, USA) between May 2012 and May 2014 in our center were enrolled. Clinical/procedural characteristics and outcome data at 1868 (1641–2024) days were collected. The incidence of scaffold thrombosis (ScT), restenosis (ScR), and target lesion failure (TLF) and their predictors were investigated using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analysis. Results: 512 consecutive patients and 598 lesions were included in the database. A total of 30 ScT, 42 ScR, and 92 TLF were reported. The rate of ScT was 3.6% in the first year, 2.2% in the second–third year, and 0.6% in the fourth–fifth year after implantation. The corresponding rates of ScR were 2.5%, 5.7%, and 1.1%. The corresponding incidence of TLF was 8.8%, 8.0%, 3.8%. Procedural parameters (vessel size, scaffold footprint) and the technique used at implantation (including predilation, parameters of sizing, and postdilation) were predictors of ScT and TLF in the first three years after implantation. In contrast, only diabetes was predictive of events between 4–5 years (HR 6.21(1.99–19.40), p = 0.002). Conclusions: After device resorption, the incidence of very late adverse events in lesions/patients implanted with a BRS decreases. Procedural and device-related parameters are not predictors of events anymore.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

BRS represent a new approach to treating coronary artery disease. Beneficial properties of BRS regarding the restoration of vasomotility after resorption make them attractive devices in CTO revascularization. However, experience in this setting is limited.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Scholar, and Scopus for reports of at least 9 patients with CTO undergoing BRS implantation. Patients' and procedural characteristics were summarized. The primary outcome of interest was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017069322).

RESULTS

Thirteen reports for a total of 843 lesions with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR 6-12) were included in the analysis. At short-term, the summary estimate rate of TLR was 2.6% (95% CI: 1 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887) while at mid to long-term it was 3.8% (95% CI: 2 to 6%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.803). At long-term follow-up (≥12 months), the summary estimate rate of cardiac death was 1.1% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887). The summary estimate rates of scaffold thrombosis and clinical restenosis were respectively 0.9% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.919) and 1.8% (95% CI: 0 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.448). Finally, the summary estimate rate of target vessel revascularization was 6.6% (95% CI: 0 to 11%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of BRS in a population with CTO is feasible, although further longer-term outcome studies are necessary.

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

Clinical results of bioresorbable drug-eluting scaffolds in short and long coronary artery lesions using the PSP technique

BACKGROUND

Data on bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for the treatment of long lesions are limited. We studied the use of BVS-Absorb in routine clinical practice and compared the outcome of long lesions with short lesions. Implantation of drug-eluting scaffolds without PSP-technique (predilation, proper sizing and postdilation) is associated with an increased thrombotic risk. We compared the long-term outcome up to 36 months of patients with short (< 20 mm) and long (≥20 mm) coronary artery lesions after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) via PSP-technique.

METHODS

Three hundred twenty-six patients with 424 lesions were enrolled in this prospective study and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with the Absorb BVS. Clinical follow-up was scheduled after 12, 24 and 36 months. In all lesions the PSP-technique was used. The device oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) was defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) not clearly related to a non-target vessel and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier estimates for DOCE after 12 months were 2.63% for short lesions and 8.09% for long lesions (p = 0.0131), 5.51% vs. 11.35% (p = 0.0503) after 24 months and 8.00% vs. 18.00% (p = 0.0264) after 36 months of clinical follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates for TLR after 12 months were 1.46% for short and 7.69% for long lesions (p = 0.0012), 2.06% vs. 8.75% after 24 months (p = 0.0027) and 4.96% vs. 9.59% after 36 months of follow-up (p = 0.0109). Scaffold thrombosis rates were low.

CONCLUSIONS

In long lesions compared to short ones the bioresorbable scaffold Absorb implanted with the proper PSP technique Absorb has significant higher rates of DOCE.

THE LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Is 3 (non-random sample).

Procedural Predictors for Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Thrombosis: Analysis of the Individual Components of the "PSP" Technique

The technique used at the time of implantation has a central role in determining the risk of thrombosis in bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS). Different definitions of the "optimal" implantation technique exist, however. The impact of individual procedural characteristics on the risk of scaffold thrombosis (ScT) was evaluated in a single-center observational study that enrolled 657 patients (79% males, mean age 63 ± 12 years) with 763 lesions who received a total of 925 BRS for de novo lesions. During a median 1076 (762⁻1206) days' follow-up there were 28 cases of thrombosis. Independent predictors of ScT included the use of predilatation balloons bigger than the nominal BRS diameter (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.4 (0.16⁻0.98), p = 0.04), sizing (implantation in vessels with reference vessel diameter >3.5 mm or <2.5 mm: HR = 5.71 (2.32⁻14.05), p = 0.0002) and the degree of vessel expansion (ratio of minimum lumen to reference vessel diameter, HR: 0.005 (0.0001⁻0.23), p = 0.007). In addition, a mild BRS oversizing (final BRS diameter to vessel diameter 1.14⁻1.28) was associated with a lower thrombosis risk, whereas undersizing and more severe oversizing (final BRS diameter to vessel diameter <1.04 and >1.35, respectively) were associated with an increased risk of ScT (HR = 0.13 (0.02⁻0.59), p = 0.0007). In conclusion, different components of the "optimal" technique have different impacts on the risk of BRS thrombosis. Besides predilatation with a balloon larger than the BRS diameter, correct vessel size selection and a mild to moderate oversizing appear to be protective.