Predictors of Long-term Adverse Events After Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Implantation: A 1,933-Patient Pooled Analysis From International Registries.

AIMS To investigate the predictors of long-term adverse clinical events after implantation of the everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). METHODS AND RESULTS We pooled patient-level databases derived from the large-scale ABSORB EXTEND study and five high-volume international centers. Between November 2011 and November 2015, 1,933 patients underwent PCI with a total of 2,372 Absorb BVS implanted. The median age was 61.0 (IQR 53.0 to 68.6) years, 24% had diabetes, 68.2% presented with stable coronary artery disease. At a median follow-up of 616 days, MACE occurred in 93 (4.9%) patients, all-cause death in 36 (1.9%) patients, myocardial infarction in 47 (2.5%) patients, and target vessel revascularization in 72 (3.8%) patients. Definite or probable scaffold thrombosis occurred in 26 (1.3%) patients. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, acute coronary syndromes (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47 to 5.29; p=0.002), dyslipidemia (HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.79; p=0.007), scaffold/reference diameter ratio >1.25 (HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.88; p=0.001), and residual stenosis >15% (HR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.07; p<0.001) were independent predictors of MACE, whereas the use of intravascular imaging was independently associated with a reduction in MACE (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.28; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Optimal Absorb BVS implantation and the use of intravascular imaging guidance were associated to lower rates of adverse events at long-term follow-up.

[1]  P. Teirstein,et al.  3-Year Clinical Outcomes With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffolds: The ABSORB III Trial. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  E. Boersma,et al.  Potentially increased incidence of scaffold thrombosis in patients treated with Absorb BVS who terminated DAPT before 18 months. , 2017, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

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

[4]  P. Serruys,et al.  Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds for Coronary Revascularization. , 2016, Circulation.

[5]  W. Cheong,et al.  1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis , 2016, The Lancet.

[6]  Heribert Schunkert,et al.  Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials , 2016, The Lancet.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  R. Whitbourn,et al.  Relation Between Bioresorbable Scaffold Sizing Using QCA-Dmax and Clinical Outcomes at 1 Year in 1,232 Patients From 3 Study Cohorts (ABSORB Cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II). , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[10]  R. Whitbourn,et al.  The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelve-month clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled. , 2015, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[11]  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.

[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]  P. Serruys,et al.  Assessing bioresorbable coronary devices: methods and parameters. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[14]  P. Serruys,et al.  Differential impact of five coronary devices on plaque size: insights from the ABSORB and SPIRIT trials. , 2014, International journal of cardiology.

[15]  R. Whitbourn,et al.  Dynamics of vessel wall changes following the implantation of the absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a multi-imaging modality study at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. , 2014, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[16]  Michail I. Papafaklis,et al.  Effect of the endothelial shear stress patterns on neointimal proliferation following drug-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: an optical coherence tomography study. , 2014, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

[17]  R. Virmani,et al.  Pathology of Second-Generation Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus First-Generation Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Humans , 2014, Circulation.

[18]  Bernard Chevalier,et al.  Angiographic geometric changes of the lumen arterial wall after bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and metallic platform stents at 1-year follow-up. , 2011, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

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

[20]  E. Topol,et al.  Determinants of 2‐Year Outcome After Coronary Angioplasty in Patients With Multivessel Disease on the Basis of Comprehensive Preprocedural Evaluation: Implications for Patient Selection , 1991, Circulation.