RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable scaffolds have been introduced to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents. Higher rates of device thrombosis, however, have been reported up to 3 years after implantation of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). In the current article, we therefore report long-term clinical outcomes of the AMC Absorb Registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the AMC Absorb Registry, all patients who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention with Absorb BVS implantation between 30 August 2012 and 5 August 2013â¯at the Amsterdam University Medical Centre-Academic Medical Centre were included. The composite endpoint of this analysis was target-vessel failure (TVF). The median follow-up of the study cohort of the AMC Absorb Registry was 1534 days. At the time of the cross-sectional data sweep the clinical status at 4 years was known in 124 of 135 patients (91.9%). At long-term follow-up, the composite endpoint of TVF had occurred in 27 patients. The 4year Kaplan-Meier estimate of TVF was 19.8%. At 4 years cardiac death had occurred in 4 patients (3.2%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction in 9 (6.9%) patients. Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 5 (3.8%) patients. We found 1 case of very late scaffold thrombosis that occurred at 911 days after device implantation in a patient who was not on dual anti-platelet therapy. CONCLUSION: In a patient population reflecting routine clinical practice, we found that cases of TVF continued to accrue beyond 2 years after Absorb BVS implantation.
RESUMO
AIMS: Mid- and long-term safety and efficacy of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) have been studied in randomised trials; however, most were not individually powered for clinical endpoints. We performed a weighted meta-analysis comparing mid- and long-term outcomes in patients treated with the BVS compared with the Xience metallic stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomised trials comparing the BVS and Xience were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference abstracts. Seven trials were included (BVS n = 3258, Xience n = 2319) with follow-up between 1-3 years. The primary outcome of target lesion failure occurred more frequently in BVS compared with Xience [OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.11-1.62, p = 0.003]. Overall definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with the BVS [OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.88-4.36, p < 0.001] and this extended beyond 1 year of follow-up [OR 4.13; 95% CI 1.99-8.57, p < 0.001]. Clinically indicated or ischaemia driven target lesion revascularisation [OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.83, p = 0.005] and myocardial infarction (all MI) [OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.20-2.23, p = 0.002] were more frequently seen in the BVS compared with Xience. Rates of target vessel failure [OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.46, p = 0.25] and cardiac death [OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.57-1.46, p = 0.71] were not significantly different between BVS and Xience. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows a higher rate of target lesion failure and an almost threefold higher rate of device thrombosis in BVS compared with Xience, which extends beyond the first year. Device thrombosis did not lead to an overall increased (cardiac) mortality.
RESUMO
Historically, percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) of bifurcation lesions have been associated with a lower procedural success rate, a higher complication rate, and less favorable clinical outcomes, compared to PCI of non-bifurcation lesions. However, percutaneous treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions have been improved over the past decade due to improvements in stent design and the introduction of specific bifurcation stent techniques. Some even argue that PCI of bifurcation lesions should no longer be considered as being complex. However, recent studies have shown that there are still certain bifurcation lesion subtypes which are at higher risk for adverse cardiac events after PCI. Future efforts, including the development of a dedicated bifurcation device, should be focused on this specific high-risk subgroup, including distal left main bifurcations.