Impact of postdilatation on performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared with everolimus-eluting stents: A propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter "real-world" registry

Impact of in-Hospital Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Recovery on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Impella Support for HR PCI or Cardiogenic Shock: A Sub-Analysis from the IMP-IT Registry

(1) Background: Percutaneous left ventricle assist devices (pLVADs) demonstrated an improvement in mid-term clinical outcomes in selected patients with severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. However, the prognostic impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery is unclear. Accordingly, the present sub-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of LVEF recovery in both cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR PCI) supported with pLVADs in the IMP-IT registry. (2) Methods: A total of 279 patients (116 patients in CS and 163 patients in HR PCI) treated with Impella 2.5 or CP in the IMP-IT registry were included in this analysis, after excluding those who died while in the hospital or with missing data on LVEF recovery. The primary study objective was a composite of all-cause death, rehospitalisation for heart failure, left ventricle assist device (LVAD) implantation, or heart transplantation (HT), overall referred to as the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery on the primary study objective in patients treated with Impella for HR PCI and CS, respectively. (3) Results: The mean in-hospital change in LVEF was 10 ± 1% (p < 0.001) in the CS cohort and 3 ± 7% (p < 0.001) in the HR PCI group, achieved by 44% and 40% of patients, respectively. In the CS group, patients with less than 10% in-hospital LVEF recovery experienced higher rates of MACE at 1 year of follow-up (FU) (51% vs. 21%, HR 3.8, CI 1.7-8.4, p < 0.01). After multivariate analysis, LVEF recovery was the main independent protective factor for MACE at FU (HR 0.23, CI 0.08-0.64, p = 0.02). In the HR PCI group, LVEF recovery (>3%) was not associated with lower MACE at multivariable analysis (HR 0.73, CI 0.31-1.72, p = 0.17). Conversely, the completeness of revascularisation was found to be a protective factor for MACE (HR 0.11, CI 0.02-0.62, p = 0.02) (4) Conclusions: Significant LVEF recovery was associated with improved outcomes in CS patients treated with PCI during mechanical circulatory support with Impella, whereas complete revascularisation showed a significant clinical relevance in HR PCI.

Clinical presentation does not affect acute mechanical performance of the Novolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold as assessed by optical coherence tomography

Introduction

Initial trials of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have mostly excluded patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, these patients might benefit from a BVS platform, in particular as they are often younger and have been less frequently treated than patients with chronic disease.

Aim

To compare the acute performance of a Novolimus eluting BVS in ACS and non-ACS patients using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients presenting with acute or chronic coronary syndrome.

Material and methods

The final OCT pullback of 79 patients (34 with ACS, 45 non-ACS) was analysed at 1-mm intervals. The following indices were calculated: mean and minimal area, residual area stenosis, incomplete strut apposition, tissue prolapse, eccentricity index, symmetry index, strut fracture, and edge dissection.

Results

OCT showed a minimum lumen area (non-ACS vs. ACS) of 6.2 ±2.1 vs. 5.6 ±1.5 mm² (p = 0.21). Mean residual area stenosis was 14.5% vs. 19.5% (p = 0.39). The mean eccentricity index did not differ significantly (0.78 ±0.13 vs. 0.78 ±0.06; p = 0.42). There was a non-significant tendency for more fractures in the non-ACS group (22.2% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.07). Prolapse area was comparable (4.4 ±7.4 mm² vs. 5.2 ±10.9 mm²; p = 0.62).

Conclusions

This is the first study to investigate the acute mechanical performance of a Novolimus-eluting BVS in patients with different clinical presentations using OCT. We found that clinical presentation did not determine acute mechanical performance as assessed by the final OCT pullback. There was evidence of more mechanical complications in terms of fractures and a higher percentage of incomplete strut apposition in the group of patients with chronic coronary syndrome.

The Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of Postdilation after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The effect of postdilation in patients with acute coronary syndrome is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the clinical and angiographic outcomes of postdilation after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wangfang databases were searched from inception to August 30, 2020. Eligible studies from acute coronary syndrome patients treated with postdilation were included. The primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), the secondary clinical outcomes comprised all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, and the angiographic outcomes were no reflow and slow reflow.

Results

11 studies met inclusion criteria. In clinical outcomes, our pooled analysis demonstrated that the postdilation had a tendency of decreasing MACE (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45–1.00; P = 0.05) but significantly increased all-cause death (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.05–2.12; P = 0.03). No significant difference existed in stent thrombosis (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.40–1.26; P = 0.24), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.51–3.83; P = 0.51), and target vessel revascularization (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.21–1.80; P = 0.37) between postdilation and non-postdilation groups. In angiographic outcomes, there were no significant differences in no reflow (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.54–2.65; P = 0.66) and slow reflow (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.93–1.35; P = 0.24) between two groups.

Conclusions

The postdilation tends to reduce the risk of MACE but significantly increases all-cause death, without significantly affecting stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and coronary TIMI flow grade. However, more randomized controlled trials are required for investigating the effect of postdilation for patients with acute coronary syndrome (registered by PROSPERO, CRD42020160748).

Factors associated with long-term major adverse cardiac events of coronary bioresorbable vascular scaffold

The long-term clinical outcomes after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in a real-world cohort were not well described. To identify factors associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) on long-term follow-up after implantation of BVS in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This was an observational study based on a hospital registry of percutaneous coronary intervention. Participants were consecutive patients who underwent PCI and implanted with at least one everolimus-eluting BVS (Absorb^®) in a single center between 2014 and 2017. Among the 170 cases analyzed (mean age 60.4 ± 10.7), a total of 203 Absorb BVS were implanted. MACE developed in 33 (19.4%) patients over a median follow-up period of 61 months, including 9 (5.3%) deaths, 13 (7.6%) non-fatal myocardial infarction and 19 (11.2%) ischemia driven target vessel revascularization. Definite or probable stent thrombosis developed in 4 (2.4%) patients. In crude analysis, history of smoking and initial presentation of non-ST elevation-acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) were predictors of long-term MACE. In adjusted analysis, presentation with NSTE-ACS was an independent predictor of long-term MACE [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.52; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.50 to 13.6, P = 0.007]. Among patients receiving implantation of ABSORB BVS, presentation with NSTE-ACS was an independent predictor of MACE after a median follow-up period of 61 months. Future research is needed to confirm these findings and to determine the long-term safety of BVS in patients with NSTE-ACS.

Mid-term outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds vs second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), which have the characteristics of scaffold absorption and vascular function recovery, are the latest innovation in the treatment of coronary artery disease. This new concept has become a hot topic in the field of interventional cardiology. Data regarding mid-term clinical outcomes of BVS in acute coronary syndromes are currently scarce. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare mid-term outcome data for BVS and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and relevant web sites for studies with a follow-up of ≥ 1 years that studied percutaneous coronary interventions with BVS vs second-generation DES in acute coronary syndromes. A meta-analysis was performed with the software RevMan following the standards of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0.

RESULTS

Five studies, 2 randomized controlled trials, and 3 observational studies, with a total of 1758 patients (BVS n = 917; DES n = 841) and a median follow-up duration of 24 months, were included. BVS, when compared with DES, resulted in higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.12-3.64; P = .02) and stent/scaffold thrombosis (ST/ScT) (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.13-4.89, P = .02). When TLR due to device thrombosis were excluded, the difference in risk estimates between the 2 groups was no longer significant (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.73-3.82, P = .22). The risk for all-cause death (OR = 1.32 95% CI: 0.61-2.88, P = .48), cardiac death (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.58-2.86 P = .52), target vessel myocardial infarction (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 0.86-2.61, P = .15), and target lesion failure (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.76-2.35, P = .31) did not differ between BVS and DES groups.

CONCLUSION

At mid-term follow-up, BVS had a higher risk of TLR and ST/ScT than the second-generation DES in patients with acute coronary syndromes. ST/ScT was the key factor indicating the decreased safety and effectiveness of BVS relative to DES.

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.

Long-term clinical results of biodegradable vascular scaffold ABSORB BVS™ using the PSP-technique in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

The PSP (predilatation, sizing, post-dilatation)-technique was developed to improve the prognosis of patients after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation. In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) the use of BVS is particularly demanding and carries some potential risk regarding aggressive lesion preparation, proper vessel sizing due to spasm and thrombus inside the artery. The aim herein, was to determine the long-term results of BVS stenting in ACS patients depending on the scaffold implantation technique.

METHODS

The present study is a prospective, two-center study, which consisted of 182 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BVS (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California, USA) implantation for the ACS. All patients were divided into two groups. The first consisted of 52 patients treated with the PSP-technique (PSP group). The second group enrolled 130 patients treated with a non-PSP procedure (non-PSP group).

RESULTS

The procedure was successful in all patients. The mean observation time was 28.8 ± 16.5 months (median 28.3 months, interquartile range 24.0 [17.0-41.0] months). It was found that target vessel failure (TVF) was consistently reduced in patients using the PSP-technique as compared with the non-PSP group (5.8% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.03). Moreover, PSP-technique was superior to non-PSP-technique concerning major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (3.7% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.02). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the use of PSP technique significantly decreased the risk of target vessel revascularization (odds ratio [OR] 0.11, p = 0.01), TVF (OR 0.28, p = 0.03) and MACE (OR 0.29, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The PSP-technique for BVS implantation improves long-term results and should also be recommended for newer generations of the bioresorbable scaffold.

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.

Mid-term outcomes of the Absorb BVS versus second-generation DES: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) were introduced to overcome some of the limitations of drug-eluting stent (DES) for PCI. Data regarding the clinical outcomes of the BVS versus DES beyond 2 years are emerging.

Objective

To study mid-term outcomes.

Methods

We searched online databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL), several websites, meeting presentations and scientific session abstracts until August 8^th, 2017 for studies comparing Absorb BVS with second-generation DES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite/probable device thrombosis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using a random effects model.

Results

Ten studies, seven randomized controlled trials and three propensity-matched observational studies, with a total of 7320 patients (BVS n = 4007; DES n = 3313) and a median follow-up duration of 30.5 months, were included. Risk of TLF was increased for BVS-treated patients (OR 1.34 [95% CI: 1.12–1.60], p = 0.001, I² = 0%). This was also the case for all myocardial infarction (1.58 [95% CI: 1.27–1.96], p<0.001, I² = 0%), TLR (1.48 [95% CI: 1.19–1.85], p<0.001, I² = 0%) and definite/probable device thrombosis (of 2.82 (95% CI: 1.86–3.89], p<0.001 and I² = 40.3%). This did not result in a difference in all-cause mortality (0.78 [95% CI: 0.58–1.04], p = 0.09, I² = 0%). OR for very late (>1 year) device thrombosis was 6.10 [95% CI: 1.40–26.65], p = 0.02).

Conclusion

At mid-term follow-up, BVS was associated with an increased risk of TLF, MI, TLR and definite/probable device thrombosis, but this did not result in an increased risk of all-cause mortality.

Effectiveness and safety of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In the last years bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) become a new therapeutic option for interventional cardiologists, with the advantage of a scaffold inducing a possible vessel wall restoration. Nevertheless, several trials tried to prove the safety and efficacy profile of scaffolds, but with conflicting results.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The search was carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar, Biomed Central and Cochrane Library between January and March 2017. Inclusion criteria: randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the Absorb BVS versus durable polymer cobalt-chromium Everolimus Eluting Stent. The outcomes analysed were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion failure (TLF)/device oriented composite endpoints (DOCE), and device thrombosis. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed. Data were expressed as odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

Overall 5,674 patients were included (mean age 62.2±1.31 in drug eluting stents (DES) group vs. 62±1,47 in BVS group; P=0.942). DOCE (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.90-1.48; P=0.259, I2=0%), cardiac death (OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.52-1.40; P=0.537, I²=0%) and all-cause death (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53-1.15; P=0.205, I²=15%) did not differ between BVS and DES. Conversely, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was more frequent in the BVS group (OR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.01-1.73; P=0.039, I²=0%), as well as device thrombosis (2.2% vs. 0.6%, OR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.71-5.05, P=0.0001, I²=0%) and target-vessel MI (5.4% vs. 3%, OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.25-2.21, P=0.001, I²=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of BVS is associated with an increased risk of device thrombosis, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI. If longer follow-up or different implantation technique may change these findings should be addressed in future trials.

BRS implantation in long lesions requiring device overlapping: myth or reality?

Dealing with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) implantation in long lesions requiring device overlapping in this particular moment might seem a little provocative for several reasons. First, most studies testing BVS have focused on their safety and efficacy profile in simple patients with simple lesions. Second, ABSORB II did not meet its primary endpoint, while ABSORB III showed a higher rate of target vessel-myocardial infarction (TV-MI) at 2 years. Third, data on porcine model showed that overlapping zone has delayed but greater neointimal proliferation with consequent higher risk for scaffold thrombosis in the short-term and of in-scaffold restenosis in the long-term. Fourth, recently published data showed higher risk of TVF in patients treated with ≥60 mm BVS. Given all these premises, it may seem right to put aside this technology, while it may seem inappropriate to hypothesize the use of BVS in long lesions. The aim of the present review is precisely to critically review the available evidences regarding BVS with particular regard to overlapping BVS in order to understand whether this technology has a future per se and especially in long coronary lesions requiring overlap.

The impact of the 3-year ABSORB II trial results on my clinical practice: an Italian survey

BACKGROUND

To evaluate how the 3-year results from the "A clinical evaluation to compare the safety, efficacy and performance of ABSORB everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) system against XIENCE everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of subjects with ischemic heart disease caused by de novo native coronary artery lesions" (ABSORB II) trial have influenced clinical practice among Italian interventional cardiologists.

METHODS

We performed a survey among 95 interventional cardiologists sending a brief questionnaire by electronic mail. We collected 65 replies and analysed the data.

RESULTS

The opinion of the operators regarding the two main endpoints of the study ABSORB II was conflicting. However, 66% of the operators considered at least one of the two co-primary endpoints (late lumen loss or vasomotion) unreliable and not reflecting clinical practice. Asking about an explanation for the negative results of the study, we found that the 91% of the operators considered the implantation technique the main limit of the ABSORB II. Furthermore, 74% of the operators affirmed that the results from the study did not decrease the number of scaffold implanted in their cath-lab.

CONCLUSIONS

Absorb II trial did not influence clinical practice among Italian interventional cardiologists mainly due to the overall idea that the co-primary endpoints were not adequate to provide a robust evidence on device clinical safety and also because the lack of experience on device implantation may have influenced the outcomes.

Are acute coronary syndromes an ideal scenario for bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation?

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) represent the latest innovation in the field of interventional cardiology. BRS have recently been introduced in routine clinical practice and their use has progressively extended in everyday clinical practice. The BRS use appears theoretically attractive in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) as they are generally young with long life expectancy, thus possibly benefiting more of the so-called vascular reparative therapy. Furthermore, "culprit" lesions are usually softer and more easily expandable by current BRS compared to stable chronic lesions. However an increased risk of BRS thrombosis has been reported in clinical trials excluding ACS patients. Therefore, concerns have been raised on the safety of BRS implantation in the ACS setting in which the risk of thrombotic recurrences is definitely higher (compared to stable lesions) independently by the device implanted. Aim of this review is to provide an overview of the available data on the BRS performance in ACS patients.

Long-term outcome of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

Coronary bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome the limitations of standard metallic stents, especially to address late events after percutaneous coronary interventions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BRS, compared with Everolimus-eluting stents (EES), using the data available from randomized trials, with a focus on long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Published randomized trials comparing BRS to EES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were searched for within PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases up to April 4th 2017. The summary measure used was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies were eligible, including 5219 patients. At 2 years, BRS was associated with higher rates of target lesion failure (9.4% vs 7.2%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; p = 0.008) and device thrombosis (2.3% vs 0.7%; OR = 3.22; 95% CI 1.86 to 5.57; p < 0.0001) compared with EES. The incidence of both early (within 30 days after implantation, 1.1% vs 0.5%, OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.81; p = 0.05) and very-late device thrombosis (>1 year, 0.6% vs 0.1%, OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.82; p = 0.01) was higher with BRS compared with EES.

CONCLUSIONS

BRS may be associated with worse two-years clinical outcomes compared with EES in patients with coronary artery disease.

Two-year outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus drug-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data regarding long-term clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scarce.

METHODS

We searched online databases until October 2016 for studies comparing BVS versus DES reporting outcomes at 2 years of follow-up. We performed a meta-analysis comparing BVS with DES across the spectrum of coronary artery disease (CAD). Random effects model OR was calculated for outcomes of interest including device-oriented composite events (DOCE; defined as composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR)), all-cause mortality, definite stent thrombosis, TV-MI and TLR.

RESULTS

A total of 2360 patients enrolled in five studies met criteria for inclusion in this analysis. At 2 years, BVS was associated with higher rates of DOCE (6.9% vs 4.5%, OR=1.53; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.23; p=0.02), absolute risk increase (ARI) 2.4%, relative risk increase (RRI) 53%, TV-MI (4% vs 1.8%, OR=1.94; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.67; p=0.04), ARI 2.2%, RRI 122% and definite stent thrombosis (2.1% vs 0.6%, OR=3.39; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.88; p=0.005), ARI 1.5%, RRI 250% compared with DES. No differences in all-cause mortality (OR=0.86; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.81; p=0.80) and TLR (OR=1.44; 95% CI 0.81 to 2.54; p=0.21) were observed between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

BVS may be associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes compared with DES. Randomised clinical trials are encouraged to expeditiously report long-term safety and efficacy outcomes and identify predictors of adverse events with BVS compared with DES.

Optical coherence tomography findings after longitudinal ablation for an underexpanded stent in a heavily calcified lesion: a case report

Background

Heavy coronary artery calcification is responsible for stent underexpansion, which is associated with increased in-stent restenosis. Here we report a case in which optical coherence tomography (OCT) demonstrated that the metal component of an underexpanded stent previously implanted in a heavy calcified lesion had been completely removed after ablation with rotational atherectomy.

Case presentation

An 83-year-old man with exertional angina was referred to our hospital. Coronary angiography revealed severe stenosis in the proximal portion of the right coronary artery and left circumflex artery and chronic total occlusion (CTO) in the mid portion of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). We performed complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention. Because the CTO lesion in LAD contained napkin-ring heavy calcifications, rotational atherectomy with a 1.75-mm burr was undergone, followed by the deployment of drug-eluting stents and postdilation with a high-pressure balloon. However, expansion of the stent was incomplete. To address the recurrence of in-stent restenosis and resistance to the dilation with the high-pressure balloon, we decided to simultaneously ablate both the heavy calcification and underexpanded stent. Longitudinal stent ablation with 1.75- and 2.0-mm burrs was successful, and OCT demonstrated that the metallic component of the underexpanded stent had been completely removed.

Conclusion

If a stent fails to completely extend in heavy calcification, longitudinal stent ablation by rotational atherectomy could be an effective remedy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0419-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.