Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study.

BACKGROUND: In this prespecified AIDA-trial sub-study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3-year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3-year follow-up.

Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI.

BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed an investigator-initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of routine clinical practice. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1845 patients undergoing PCI to receive either a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (924 patients) or a metallic stent (921 patients). The primary end point was target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). The data and safety monitoring board recommended early reporting of the study results because of safety concerns. This report provides descriptive information on end-point events. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 707 days. Target-vessel failure occurred in 105 patients in the scaffold group and in 94 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 11.7% and 10.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.48; P=0.43); event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-event analyses. Cardiac death occurred in 18 patients in the scaffold group and in 23 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively), target-vessel myocardial infarction occurred in 48 patients in the scaffold group and in 30 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients in the scaffold group and in 65 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 8.7% and 7.5%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 31 patients in the scaffold group as compared with 8 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 3.5% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.78 to 8.42; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary report of a trial involving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel failure between the patients who received a bioresorbable scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow-up. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; AIDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01858077 .).

Clinical outcomes at 2 years of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the Xience drug-eluting metallic stent in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome versus stable coronary disease-AIDA trial substudy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.

Scaffold thrombosis following implantation of the ABSORB BVS in routine clinical practice: Insight into possible mechanisms from optical coherence tomography.

OBJECTIVES: To identify potential underlying mechanisms of early and (very) late scaffold thrombosis (ScT) by optical coherence tomography (OCT), in a frame-by-frame analysis. BACKGROUND: The absorb scaffold is associated with an increased risk of ScT compared with metallic stents. Several potential causes of bioresorbable ScT have been identified, however the precise etiology still remains unclear. METHODS: Between February 2013 and February 2016, 13 patients presenting with definite ScT underwent OCT imaging. After guidewire passage or balloon inflations, OCT images were acquired. Pullbacks were assessed offline at each 1 mm longitudinal interval within the treated segment and the 5 mm segments adjacent to both edges. Primary cause of ScT was assessed by reviewing medical records, baseline angiographic films, and OCT pullback and angiographic films at time of ScT. RESULTS: 13 patients, with 14 thrombotic lesions presented either with early ScT (i.e., ≤30 days) or very (late) (i.e., >30 days). Analysis demonstrated a significantly smaller in-scaffold maximal lumen diameter in the early cases (2.75 ± 0.85 mm vs. 3.00 ± 0.46 mm; P = 0.033) and a nonsignificant smaller minimal scaffold diameter (2.44 ± 0.62 mm vs. 2.58 ± 0.37 mm P = 0.097). Per-strut analysis demonstrated significantly more malapposed scaffold struts in (very) late cases (6% versus 0.6%, P < 0.001). Assessment of the predominate cause showed underexpansion as the dominant factor in the early cases, while malapposition was predominantly seen in the (very)late cases. CONCLUSIONS: OCT performed in patients presenting with Absorb ScT demonstrated that malapposition of scaffold struts was more prominent in patients presenting with (very) late ScT, while underexpansion was more frequent in the early cases.

First-in-Man Trial of SiO2 Inert-Coated Bare Metal Stent System in Native Coronary Stenosis　- The AXETIS FIM Trial.

BACKGROUND: A novel bare metal stent with an SiO2coating was developed to prevent excessive neointimal hyperplasia by inertization of the metallic stent surface. The efficacy of the device was demonstrated in a preclinical model. The aim of this first-in-man trial was to assess the safety and feasibility of the new device.Methods and Results:This prospective non-randomized single-arm trial was designed to enroll 35 patients with a de novo coronary lesion. Quantitative coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed at the baseline procedure and at the 6-month follow-up. Stent implantation was performed with OCT guidance according to optimal stent implantation criteria. The trial was terminated upon the advice of the data safety monitoring board after enrolling 14 patients due to the high incidence of re-intervention. Optimal OCT implantation criteria were achieved in only 8.3% of lesions. At 6 months, angiographic in-stent late lumen loss as the primary endpoint was 0.77±0.44 mm, and binary restenosis occurred in 33.3% of lesions. At the 6-month OCT, neointimal volume obstruction was 32.8±15.6% with a neointimal thickness of 237±117 µm. At 12 months, the device-oriented composite endpoint (defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization rate) was 33.3%. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with the preclinical study, the Axetis stent did not efficiently suppress neointimal hyperplasia in humans in this trial.

Amsterdam Investigator-initiateD Absorb strategy all-comers trial (AIDA trial): a clinical evaluation comparing the efficacy and performance of ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold strategy vs the XIENCE family (XIENCE PRIME or XIENCE Xpedition) everolimus-eluting coronary stent strategy in the treatment of coronary lesions in consecutive all-comers: rationale and study design.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (AbsorbBVS) is a completely resorbable device engineered to overcome the limitations of permanent metallic stents, providing temporary scaffolding and antiproliferative drug delivery for the treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS: The objective of the AIDA trial is to evaluate the efficacy and performance in an contemporary all-comer population of the AbsorbBVS strategy vs the XIENCE family everolimus-eluting metallic coronary stent system in the treatment of coronary lesions. The AIDA trial is a prospective, randomized (1:1), active-control, single-blinded, all-comer, noninferiority trial. A total of 2,690 subjects will be enrolled with broad inclusion and limited exclusion criteria according to the "Instructions for Use" of the AbsorbBVS strategy. The study population includes both simple and complex lesions, in patients with stable and acute coronary syndrome. The follow-up continues for 5years. The primary end point of the trial is target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, at 2years. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT01858077. CONCLUSION: The AIDA trial will provide the first randomized direct comparison between the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention practice.

First report on long-term clinical results after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with the Tryton dedicated bifurcation stent.

BACKGROUND: To improve clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions of coronary bifurcation lesions, the Tryton Side Branch Stent™ (Tryton Medical, Durham) was developed. Registry studies evaluating the Tryton stent has shown promisingclinical results and the stent is currently compared with the provisional single stent strategy in a randomized trial. However, clinical results beyond one year are lacking, and therefore, we investigated the one- and two-year outcomes after Tryton stent placement in a single-center registry study. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients in our center in whom Tryton placement was attempted between October 2010 and December 2011 were included. Clinical outcomes were defined as cardiac death, any myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), and target vessel failure (TVF; composite of cardiac death, MI, and TVR). Event rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. We included 91 patients. Almost half (42%) of the patients included had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as indication for PCI (12% unstable angina, 14% NSTEMI, and 16% STEMI). Median follow-up duration was 713 days (IQR 617-840). TVF rates were 14.5% (one year) and 20.3% (two year). Two-year cardiac death, MI, TVR, TLR and ST rates were 4.4%, 10.2%, 12.7%, 9.2%, and 2.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center registry, use of the Tryton stent was associated with acceptable clinical outcomes at two-year follow-up.

Outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents by coronary complexity: a sub-analysis of the AIDA trial.

AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the impact of the complexity of coronary disease as assessed by the SYNTAX score (SXscore) on the clinical outcomes in the AIDA trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the AIDA trial, we compared Absorb versus XIENCE in routine clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were stratified by SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXscore ≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). The SXscore was available in 1,661 of the 1,845 (90%) patients. The event rate of TVF was numerically lower in Absorb compared to XIENCE (3.7% versus 5.6%; p=0.257) in the SXlow tertile, numerically higher in Absorb in the SXmid tertile (11.4% versus 9.3%, p=0.421) and similar in the SXhigh tertile (15.5% versus 15.6%; p=0.960). The rates of definite/probable device thrombosis in Absorb versus XIENCE were significantly higher in the SXmid tertile (3.3% versus 0.8%, p=0.043) and in the SXhigh tertile (3.7% versus 0.8%, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significantly different rates of TVF between Absorb and XIENCE patients. Absorb-treated patients in the SXmid and SXhigh tertiles had an increased risk of device thrombosis when compared to XIENCE-treated patients. The rates of device thrombosis in the SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, are more acceptable than in the SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles.

The influence of implantation techniques on lesion oriented-outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES lesions treated in routine clinical practice at complete three year follow-up: AIDA trial QCA substudy.

It has been hypothesized that dedicated optimized Absorb BVS implantation techniques might mitigate the risk of adverse events such as target vessel failure and device thrombosis. In this explorative AIDA trial QCA substudy, we sought to investigate the influence of implantation techniques on lesion-oriented outcomes in both the Absorb BVS and Xience EES arm at complete 3-year follow-up. The current analysis includes 2152 study lesions treated with at least one study device, of which the baseline angiogram was suited for offline QCA analysis, including Dmax analysis. The lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCE) of this analysis was a composite of definite device thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target-vessel myocardial infarction. In Absorb BVS, the Lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE) occurred numerically less in correctly QCA sized vessels when compared to incorrectly sized vessels 8.5% (58/696) versus 11.1% (39/358), p = 0.151. In Xience EES, LOCE had occurred more frequently in incorrectly sized devices according to device diameter/RVD matching; 2.2% (4/187) in correctly sized devices versus 7.1% (63/911) in incorrectly sized devices (p = 0.014). In this AIDA trial QCA substudy, rates of LOCE were significantly lower in Xience EES treated lesions in which devices were correctly sized according to the definitions of device diameter/RVD matching.