Clinical outcomes of overlapping versus non-overlapping everolimus-eluting absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: An analysis from the multicentre prospective RAI registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02298413).

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes of patients treated with overlapping versus non-overlapping Absorb BVS. BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the clinical impact of stent overlap with the Absorb BVS bioresorbable stent. METHODS: We compared outcomes of patients receiving overlapping or non-overlapping Absorb BVS in the multicenter prospective RAI Registry. RESULTS: Out of 1,505 consecutive patients treated with Absorb BVS, 1,384 were eligible for this analysis. Of these, 377 (27%) were in the overlap group, and 1,007 (73%) in the non-overlap group. The most frequent overlap configuration was the marker-to-marker type (48%), followed by marker-over-marker (46%) and marker-inside-marker (6%) types. Patients of the overlap group had higher prevalence of multivessel disease and higher SYNTAX score, and required more frequently the use of intravascular imaging. At a median follow-up of 368 days, no difference was observed between overlap and non-overlap groups in terms of a device-related composite endpoint (cardiac death, TV-MI, ID-TLR) (5.8% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.20) or of a patient-related composite endpoint (any death, any MI, any revascularization) (15.4% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.18). Cardiac death (1.0% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.54), MI (4.5% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.51), TVR (4.5% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.51) and stent thrombosis (1.1 vs. 1.5%, P = 1.00) were also comparable between groups. When assessing outcomes of the overlap population according to overlap configurations used, no difference was observed in terms of the device- or patient-related composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of patients with or without overlapping BVS were comparable at mid-term follow-up despite higher angiographic complexity of the overlap subset. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Magnesium 2000 postmarket evaluation: Guideline adherence and intraprocedural performance of a sirolimus-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold.

BACKGROUND: The Magmaris bioresorbable magnesium scaffold was successfully tested in in-vitro and in clinical premarket studies. Subsequently the Magmaris postmarket program aimed to review intraprocedural data of at least 2000 patients to assess user preferences, guideline adherence and intraprocedural performance in clinical routine. METHODS: This international multicentre survey encompasses data from 356 hospitals across 45 countries. As part of the certification for Magmaris implantation, each hospital had to complete consecutive post-market evaluation forms of their first 10 commercial Magmaris patients. RESULTS: From June 2016 to May 2018, data on 2018 implantations were collected. Main reasons for selecting Magmaris was patients' life expectancy (67%, n = 1359) and low or not calcified lesions, (67%, n = 1357). Magmaris was successfully deployed in 99% of cases (n = 1995), predilatation was performed in 95% (n = 1922) and post-dilatation in 87% (n = 1756). Physicians rated the overall performance and the pushability as good or very good in 96% of cases (n = 1799). Guide wire friction, trackability, and conformability were rated as good or very good in 94% of cases, and crossability in 93%. The majority of patients were scheduled to receive dual antiplatelet therapy for up to 12 months. CONCLUSION: Generally, implantation guidelines were adhered to and theoretical advantages of the metal scaffold observed in in-vitro tests have translated into practice with good intraprocedural performance outcomes, confirming the controlled roll-out of this novel technology into clinical practice. SUMMARY FOR ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENT: The Magmaris 2000 program includes the first commercial cases at each hospital. Overall, data on 2018 implantations were collected. The high rate of pre- and post-dilatation as well as other parameters confirm that generally the implantation guidelines are adhered to and the good intraprocedural performance (rated as good or very good in 96%) confirm the theoretical advantages of a metallic scaffold in practice.