Early healing after treatment of coronary lesions by thin strut everolimus, or thicker strut biolimus eluting bioabsorbable polymer stents: The SORT-OUT VIII OCT study.

AIMS: Early healing after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation may reduce the risk of stent thrombosis. The aim of this study was to compare patterns of early healing after implantation of the thin strut everolimus-eluting Synergy DES (Boston Scientific) or the biolimus-eluting Biomatix Neoflex DES (Biosensors). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 160 patients with the chronic or acute coronary syndrome were randomized 1:1 to Synergy or Biomatrix DES. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed at baseline and at either 1- or 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was a coronary stent healing index (CSHI), a weighted index of strut coverage, neointimal hyperplasia, malapposition, and extrastent lumen. A total of 133 cases had OCT follow-up and 119 qualified for matched OCT analysis. The median CSHI score did neither differ significantly between the groups at 1 month: Synergy 8.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.0; 14.0) versus Biomatrix 8.5 (IQR: 4.0; 15.0) (p = 0.47) nor at 3 months: Synergy 6.5 (IQR: 2.0; 13.0) versus Biomatrix 6.0 (IQR: 4.0; 11.0) (p = 0.83). Strut coverage was 84.6% (IQR: 72.0; 97.9) for Synergy versus 77.6% (IQR: 70.1; 90.3) for Biomatrix (p = 0.15) at 1 month and 90.3% (IQR 79.0; 98.8) (Synergy) versus 83.9% (IQR: 77.5; 92.6) (Biomatrix) (p = 0.068) at 3 months. Pooled 1- and 3-month coverage was 88.6% (IQR: 74.4; 98.4) for Synergy compared with 80.7% (IQR: 73.2; 90.8) for Biomatrix (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The early healing response after treatment with the Synergy or Biomatrix DES did not differ significantly as determined by a healing index. The Synergy DES showed overall better early stent strut coverage.

Bioresorbable magnesium scaffold in the treatment of simple coronary bifurcation lesions: The BIFSORB pilot II study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and healing response of a magnesium-based bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in the treatment of simple bifurcation lesions using the single stent provisional technique. BACKGROUND: BRS may hold potential advantages in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, however low radial strength and expansion capacity has been an issue with polymer-based scaffolds. The magnesium BRS may prove suitable for bifurcation treatment as its mechanical properties are closer to those of permanent metallic drug-eluting stents. METHODS: The study was a proof-of-concept study with planned inclusion of 20 patients with stable angina pectoris and a bifurcation lesion involving a large side branch (SB) > 2.5 mm with less than 50% diameter stenosis. Procedure and healing response were evaluated by optical coherence tomography (OCT). The main endpoints were a composite clinical safety endpoint and an OCT healing index at 1 month (range: 0-98). RESULTS: Eleven patients were included in the study. The study was prematurely terminated due to scaffold fractures and embolization of scaffold fragments in three cases requiring bailout stenting with drug-eluting stents. One patient underwent bypass surgery at 3 months due to stenosis proximal to the study segment. All SB were patent for 1 month. One-month OCT evaluation showed strut coverage of 96.9% and no malapposition. Scaffold fractures and uncovered jailing struts resulted in a less favorable mean OCT healing index score of 10.4 ± 9.0. CONCLUSIONS: Implanting a magnesium scaffold by the provisional technique in nontrue bifurcation lesions was associated with scaffold fracture, embolization of scaffold fragments, and a high need for bailout stenting.

Mechanical properties of the drug-eluting bioresorbable magnesium scaffold compared with polymeric scaffolds and a permanent metallic drug-eluting stent.

OBJECTIVES: To compare on the bench the physical and mechanical properties of Magmaris, a magnesium bioresorbable scaffold (BRS), with Absorb and DESolve polymeric BRS and a permanent metallic stent. BACKGROUND: Understanding the mechanical and physical properties of BRS is crucial for appropriate implantation and postdilatation. METHODS: Testing was performed in fluid at 37°C and in silicone bifurcation phantoms with a 30° angle between main branch (MB) and side branch. RESULTS: The 3.0-mm Magmaris BRS did not fracture after MB postdilatation up to 4.4 mm in contrast to the Absorb where the safe postdilatation diameter was 3.7 mm. For dilatation through stent cells, there were no Magmaris fractures with 3.0-mm noncompliant (NC) balloons inflated to nominal pressure. Mini-kissing balloon postdilatation with two 3.0-mm NC balloons up to 17 atm was without fracture except for an outlier. Longitudinal and radial strengths were similar for Magmaris and Absorb BRS. The crossing profile for the Magmaris was larger than other devices. Recoil 120 min after deployment was the greatest for Magmaris but 120 min after 3.5 mm postdilatation all devices had similar diameters. CONCLUSIONS: The Magmaris BRS was more resistant to strut fracture than Absorb. It had a larger crossing profile than other devices and similar radial and longitudinal strengths to Absorb. While recoil after deployment was greater with Magmaris, 120 min after 3.5 mm postdilatation all devices had similar diameters.

Coronary balloon catheter tip damage. A bench study of a clinical problem.

OBJECTIVES: To confirm clinically that coronary balloon catheter tips may be damaged during bifurcation treatment with side-branch access through the side of a stent. On the bench, we aimed to assess the susceptibility of different balloon designs to damage. We compared catheter tip widths. We tested whether balloon tip flaring can cause stent distortion. BACKGROUND: We had observed that balloon catheters that failed to cross to a side-branch frequently exhibited tip damage. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined microscopically for damage 82 balloon tips after clinical side-branch access. In a bench study, the forces required to compress catheter tips 0.5 mm were compared to assess susceptibility to damage. We compared tip widths of balloons of different nominal inflation diameters. We examined stents after side-branch access for distortion. In 42 of 48 (88%) of balloon tips from patients with resistance to or failure to cross through the side of a stent there was tip damage. Even when the balloon crossed without perceptible resistance, tip damage occurred in over half of balloons 18/34 (53%). Some balloon designs were more resistant to damage than others. Tips from balloons of different nominal diameters from the same manufacturer had the same width. Stent distortion caused by damaged balloon tips is improved by kissing balloon post-dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: Balloon tip damage is common with crossing between stent struts. This is one cause of failure of a balloon to access a side-branch and a new balloon should be used. If stent distortion is suspected, it should be corrected with kissing balloon post-dilatation.