Cordula Felix

Angiographic and Optical Coherence Tomography Insights Into Bioresorbable Scaffold Thrombosis Single-Center Experience

Background—As bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) are being increasingly used in complex real-world lesions and populations, BVS thrombosis cases have been reported. We present angiographic and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings in a series of patients treated in our center for definite bioresorbable scaffold thrombosis. Methods and Results—Up to June 2014, 14 patients presented with definite BVS thrombosis in our center. OCT was performed in 9 patients at the operator’s discretion. Angiographic and OCT findings were compared with a control group comprising 15 patients with definite metallic stent thrombosis. In the BVS group, time interval from index procedure to scaffold thrombosis ranged from 0 to 675 days. Incomplete lesion coverage by angiography was identified in 4 of 14 cases, malapposition by OCT in 5 of 9 cases, strut discontinuity in 2 of 9 cases, and underexpansion in 2 of 9 cases. Five patients had discontinued dual antiplatelet therapy, and in 3 of them discontinued dual antiplatelet therapy discontinuation had occurred the week preceding the event. There were no significant differences in angiographic or OCT findings between BVS and metallic stent thrombosis. Conclusions—Suboptimal implantation with incomplete lesion coverage, underexpansion, and malapposition comprises the main pathomechanism for both early and late BVS thrombosis, similar to metallic stent thrombosis. Dual antiplatelet therapy discontinuation seems to also be a secondary contributor in several late events. Our observations suggest that several potential triggers for BVS thrombosis could be avoided.

Initial experience with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for treatment of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction: a propensity-matched comparison to metallic drug eluting stents 18-month follow-up of the BVS STEMI first study.

AIMS Limited data are currently available on midterm outcomes after implantation of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for treatment of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS Patients presenting with STEMI and undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the initial experience with BVS were evaluated and compared with patients treated with everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES) by applying propensity matching. Quantitative coronary angiography analysis, and 18-month clinical follow-up were reported. A total of 302 patients were analysed, 151 with BVS and 151 with EES. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Final TIMI 3 flow was 87.4% vs. 86.1%, p=0.296. At 18-month follow-up, all-cause mortality was 2.8% vs. 3.0% in the BVS and EES groups respectively, p=0.99; the MACE rate was higher in the BVS group (9.8% vs. 3.6%, p=0.02); target lesion revascularisation was 5.7% vs. 1.3%, p=0.05. The 30-day MACE rate in BVS patients without post-dilatation was 6.8%, while in patients with post-dilatation it was 3.6%. Scaffold thrombosis (ST) occurred primarily in the acute phase (acute ST 2.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.29; subacute 0.7% vs. 0.7%, p=0.99; late 0.0% vs. 0.0%; very late 1.5% vs. 0.0%, p=0.18). All three BVS cases with acute ST had no post-dilatation at the index procedure. CONCLUSIONS STEMI patients treated during the early experience with BVS had similar acute angiographic results as compared with the EES group. Clinical midterm follow-up data showed a higher clinical events rate compared with metal stents. The majority of clinical events occurred in the early phase after implantation and mainly in cases without post-dilatation. Optimisation of the implantation technique in the acute clinical setting is of paramount importance for optimal short and mid-term outcomes.

Current status of clinically available bioresorbable scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are widely used as first choice devices in percutaneous coronary interventions. However, certain concerns are associated with the use of DES, i.e. delayed arterial healing with a subsequent risk of neo-atherosclerosis, late stent thrombosis and hypersensitivity reactions to the DES polymer. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds are the next step in percutaneous coronary interventions introducing the concept of supporting the natural healing process following initial intervention without leaving any foreign body materials resulting in late adverse events. The first-generation devices have shown encouraging results in multiple studies of selected patients up to the point of full bioresorption, supporting the introduction in regular patient care. During its introduction in daily clinical practice outside the previously selected patient groups, a careful approach should be followed in which outcome is continuously monitored.

Are BVS suitable for ACS patients? Support from a large single center real live registry

OBJECTIVES To investigate one-year outcomes after implantation of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to stable angina patients. BACKGROUND Robust data on the outcome of BVS in the setting of ACS is still scarce. METHODS Two investigator initiated, single-center, single-arm BVS registries have been pooled for the purpose of this study, namely the BVS Expand and BVS STEMI registries. RESULTS From September 2012-October 2014, 351 patients with a total of 428 lesions were enrolled. 255 (72.6%) were ACS patients and 99 (27.4%) presented with stable angina/silent ischemia. Mean number of scaffold/patient was 1.55±0.91 in ACS group versus 1.91±1.11 in non-ACS group (P=0.11). Pre- and post-dilatation were performed less frequent in ACS patients, 75.7% and 41.3% versus 89.0% and 62.0% respectively (P=0.05 and P=0.001). Interestingly, post-procedural acute lumen gain and percentage diameter stenosis were superior in ACS patients, 1.62±0.65mm (versus 1.22±0.49mm, P<0.001) and 15.51±8.47% (versus 18.46±9.54%, P=0.04). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate at 12months was 5.5% in the ACS group (versus 5.3% in stable group, P=0.90). One-year definite scaffold thrombosis rate was comparable: 2.0% for ACS population versus 2.1% for stable population (P=0.94), however, early scaffold thromboses occurred only in ACS patients. CONCLUSIONS One-year clinical outcomes in ACS patients treated with BVS were similar to non-ACS patients. Acute angiographic outcomes were better in ACS than in non-ACS, yet the early thrombotic events require attention and further research.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for treatment of complex chronic total occlusions.

AIMS Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) represent a novel therapeutic option for the treatment of coronary artery diseases. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of BVS implantation in complex chronic total occlusions (CTO). METHODS AND RESULTS The present report is a multicentre registry evaluating results after BVS deployment in challenging CTO lesions, defined as J-CTO score ≥2 (difficult or very difficult). A total of 105 patients were included in the present analysis. The mean J-CTO score was 2.61 (difficult 52.4%, very difficult 47.6%). Device success and procedural success rates were 98.1% and 97.1%, respectively. The retrograde approach was used in 25.7% of cases. After wire crossing, predilatation was performed in all cases with a mean predilatation balloon diameter of 2.73±0.43 mm. The mean scaffold length was 59.75±25.85 mm, with post-dilatation performed in 89.5% of the cases and a mean post-dilatation balloon diameter of 3.35±0.44 mm. Post-PCI minimal lumen diameter was 2.50±0.51 mm and percentage diameter stenosis 14.53±10.31%. At six-month follow-up, a total of three events were reported: one periprocedural myocardial infarction, one late scaffold thrombosis and one additional target lesion revascularisation. CONCLUSIONS The present report suggests the feasibility of BVS implantation in complex CTO lesions, given adequate lesion preparation and post-dilatation, with good acute angiographic results and midterm clinical outcomes.

Very Late Scaffold Thrombosis in Absorb BVS: Association With DAPT Termination?

The Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) is a new, promising treatment option for coronary artery disease to overcome some limitations of metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) [(1)][1]. Recently, concerns were raised regarding the occurrence of very late

TCT-12 Clinical, Angiographic and Procedural Correlates of Very Late Absorb Scaffold Thrombosis – Multi-Study Registry Results

Recent analyses suggest an increased risk of very late scaffold thrombosis (VLST) beyond 1 year after implantation of Absorb BVS compared to metallic DES, but insights as to correlates of risk emanate from a limited number of patients. We sought to identify and verify independent correlates of

Comparison of acute expansion of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic drug-eluting stents in different degrees of calcification: An optical coherence tomography study: BRS and DES, Expansion in Calcified Lesions on OCT

The acute expansion of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and drug‐eluting stents (DES) in lesions with different extent of calcification was compared by Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT).

Comparison of acute expansion of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic drug-eluting stents in different degrees of calcification: An Optical Coherence Tomography Study.

The acute expansion of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and drug‐eluting stents (DES) in lesions with different extent of calcification was compared by Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT).

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 8th, 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.