Applicability and procedural success rate of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer cohort of 383 consecutive patients

Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine applicability and procedural success of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in an all-comer cohort. Background BVS use in bifurcations and severely calcified lesions is not recommended, and a relatively large crossing profile may cause limitations. It is has never been studied how widely BVS can be applied in all-comer cohorts. Methods In 383 consecutive patients (acute coronary syndrome: 124, stable coronary disease 259), a BVS (Absorb) was used as first-line device unless any of the following contraindications were present: bifurcation with side branch >2.0 mm, reference diameter <2.5 mm or >4.0 mm, required device length <12 mm, in-stent stenosis, or contraindications to 6 months of DAPT. Patients and lesions were evaluated regarding suitability for BVS treatment, procedural success (successful BVS placement and residual stenosis <30%), and outcome. Results Of 588 lesions, 303 (52%) were unsuitable for BVS placement due to presence of a bifurcation (30% of unsuitable lesions), reference diameter >4.0 mm (13%) or <2.5 mm (12%), contraindication to 6 months DAPT (13%), in-stent stenosis (14%), and desired device length <12 mm (4%). If BVS use was attempted, procedural success with a scaffold was 95% (271/285). Crossing failure occurred in 14 cases (5%), affected lesions were significantly more calcified. After a mean follow-up period of 259 days, definite/probable scaffold thrombosis occurred in 1.1% of patients. Conclusions Approximately one-half of lesions in an all-comer population can successfully be treated with BVS. Crossing failure is rare.

[1]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Bioresorbable vascular scaffold thrombosis in a consecutive cohort of 550 patients , 2016, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[2]  S. Ooi,et al.  Twelve-Month Outcomes With a Bioresorbable Everolimus-Eluting Scaffold: Results of the ESHC-BVS Registry at Two Australian Centers. , 2016, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[3]  W. Cheong,et al.  A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan. , 2015, European heart journal.

[4]  W. Cheong,et al.  Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: ABSORB China Trial. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

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

[6]  J. Brachmann,et al.  Beyond the early stages: insights from the ASSURE registry on bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. , 2015, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[7]  R. Whitbourn,et al.  Impact of post-dilation on the acute and one-year clinical outcomes of a large cohort of patients treated solely with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold. , 2015, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[8]  M. Togni,et al.  Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  A. Colombo,et al.  Procedural feasibility and clinical outcomes in propensity-matched patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds vs new-generation drug-eluting stents. , 2015, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[10]  M. Valgimigli,et al.  Current know how on the absorb BVS technology: an experts' survey. , 2015, International journal of cardiology.

[11]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry. , 2015, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[12]  P. Serruys,et al.  A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[13]  A. Colombo,et al.  Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus‐eluting stent implantation in a real‐world population , 2015, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[14]  J. Reiber,et al.  Is it safe to implant bioresorbable scaffolds in ostial side-branch lesions? Impact of 'neo-carina' formation on main-branch flow pattern. Longitudinal clinical observations. , 2015, Atherosclerosis.

[15]  C. Hamm,et al.  Current status of bioresorbable scaffolds in the treatment of coronary artery disease. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  T. Lüscher,et al.  Feasibility of second-generation bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in complex anatomical and clinical scenarios , 2014, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[17]  P. Serruys,et al.  Procedural and clinical outcomes of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: one-month results of the Bioresorbable vascular Scaffold Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospitals (B-SEARCH). , 2014, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[18]  D. Capodanno,et al.  Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. , 2014, Minerva cardioangiologica.

[19]  A. Colombo,et al.  The absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold in coronary bifurcations: insights from bench testing. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[20]  P. Serruys,et al.  Five-year clinical and functional multislice computed tomography angiographic results after coronary implantation of the fully resorbable polymeric everolimus-eluting scaffold in patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the ABSORB cohort A trial. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[21]  P. Serruys,et al.  ABSORB II randomized controlled trial: a clinical evaluation to compare the safety, efficacy, and performance of the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold system against the XIENCE everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of subjects with ischemic heart disease c , 2012, American heart journal.

[22]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[23]  P. Serruys,et al.  Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions , 2007, Circulation.

[24]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Comparison of outcomes (early and six- month) of direct stenting with conventional stenting (a meta-analysis of ten randomized trials). , 2003, The American journal of cardiology.

[25]  H. Uehata,et al.  Initial and 6-month results of biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents in humans. , 2000, Circulation.

[26]  F. Loop,et al.  Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). , 1988, Circulation.