J.M. Fam

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.

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.