In vitro mechanical behavior and in vivo healing response of a novel thin-strut ultrahigh molecular weight poly-l-lactic acid sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold in normal swine.

BACKGROUND New generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) promise to improve the outcomes of current generation BRS technologies by decreasing wall thickness while maintaining structural strength. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical behavior and vascular healing profile of a novel thin-walled (98 μm) sirolimus-eluting ultrahigh molecular weight BRS (Magnitude, Amaranth Medical) to the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular). METHODS AND RESULTS In vitro biomechanical testing showed lower number of fractures on accelerated cycle testing over time (at 21K cycles = 20.0 [19.0-21.0] in Absorb versus 0.0 [0.0-1.0] in Magnitude-BRS). Either Magnitude (n = 43) or Absorb (n = 22) was implanted in 65 coronary segments of 22 swine. Scaffold strut's coverage was evaluated using serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis. At 14 days, Magnitude-BRS demonstrated a higher percentage of embedded struts (97.7% [95.3, 100.0] compared to Absorb (57.2% [48.0, 76.0], p = 0.003) and lower percentage of uncovered struts (0.0% [0.0, 0.0] versus Absorb 5.5% [2.6, 7.7], p = 0.02). Also, it showed a lower percent late recoil (-1.02% [-4.11, 3.21] versus 4.42% [-1.10, 8.74], p = 0.04) at 28 days. Histopathology revealed comparable neointimal proliferation and vascular healing responses between two devices up to 180 days. CONCLUSION A new generation thin walled (98-μm) Magnitude-BRS displayed a promising biomechanical behavior and strut healing profile compared to Absorb at the experimental level. This new generation BRS platform has the potential to improve the clinical outcomes shown by the current generation BRS.

[1]  Bernard Chevalier,et al.  Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial , 2016, The Lancet.

[2]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging. , 2017, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[3]  Habib Samady,et al.  Biomechanical assessment of fully bioresorbable devices. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[4]  Daniell Dokko,et al.  Comparative Biomechanical Behavior and Healing Profile of a Novel Thinned Wall Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Amorphous Poly-L-Lactic Acid Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold , 2017, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[5]  A. Colombo,et al.  Impact of Strut Width in Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity-Matched Comparison Between Bioresorbable Scaffolds and the First-Generation Sirolimus-Eluting Stent. , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[6]  Jing Ni Chan,et al.  Bioabsorbable vascular scaffold overexpansion: insights from in vitro post-expansion experiments. , 2016, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[7]  Yiannis S. Chatzizisis,et al.  Role of endothelial shear stress in stent restenosis and thrombosis: pathophysiologic mechanisms and implications for clinical translation. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  M. Shibuya,et al.  Four-year polymer biocompatibility and vascular healing profile of a novel ultrahigh molecular weight amorphous PLLA bioresorbable vascular scaffold: an OCT study in healthy porcine coronary arteries. , 2016, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[9]  G. Niccoli,et al.  Temporal Trends in Adverse Events After Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent Implantation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials , 2017, Circulation.

[10]  P. Teirstein,et al.  Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  G. Stone,et al.  Very Late Thrombosis After Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Cause for Concern? , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  R. V. van Geuns,et al.  Association of stent‐induced changes in coronary geometry with late stent failure: Insights from three‐dimensional quantitative coronary angiographic analysis , 2018, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[14]  C. Di Mario,et al.  ABSORB biodegradable stents versus second-generation metal stents: a comparison study of 100 complex lesions treated under OCT guidance. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[15]  M. Shibuya,et al.  Comparative Characterization of Biomechanical Behavior and Healing Profile of a Novel Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Amorphous Poly-L-Lactic Acid Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[16]  P. L'Allier,et al.  Bioresorbable vascular scaffold thrombosis in an all-comer patient population: single-center experience. , 2015, The Journal of invasive cardiology.