RESUMEN
Significant progress has been made in the percutaneous coronary intervention technique from the days of balloon angioplasty to modern-day metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). Although metallic stents solve a temporary problem of acute recoil following balloon angioplasty, they leave behind a permanent problem implicated in very late events (in addition to neoatherosclerosis). BRS were developed as a potential solution to this permanent problem, but the promise of these devices has been tempered by clinical trials showing increased risk of safety outcomes, both early and late. This is not too dissimilar to the challenges seen with first-generation DES in which refinement of deployment technique, prolongation of dual antiplatelet therapy, and technical iteration mitigated excess risk of very late stent thrombosis, making DES the treatment of choice for coronary artery disease. This white paper discusses the factors potentially implicated in the excess risks, including the scaffold consideration and deployment technique, and outlines patient and lesion selection, implantation technique, and dual antiplatelet therapy considerations to potentially mitigate this excess risk with the first-generation thick strut Absorb scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois). It remains to be seen whether these considerations together with technical iterations will ultimately close the gap between scaffolds and metal stents for short-term events while at the same time preserving options for future revascularization once the scaffold bioresorbs.
Asunto(s)
Implantes Absorbibles , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/instrumentación , Diseño de Prótesis , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Consenso , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Reestenosis Coronaria/etiología , Trombosis Coronaria/etiología , Difusión de Innovaciones , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Selección de Paciente , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Falla de Prótesis , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Continuous improvement in carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes, especially for periprocedural death and stroke in high-surgical-risk patients, have been seen in recent randomized trials of CAS versus carotid endarterectomy and CAS registries. However, these studies use stringent inclusion/exclusion criteria for patient, institution, and physician selection. The Carotid Stenting Boston Scientific Surveillance Program (CABANA) study was initiated to evaluate periprocedural outcomes with modern versions of the Carotid Wallstent and FilterWire EZ System for operators with a wide range of clinical specialties, CAS experience and training levels, in patients with a broad range of high-surgical-risk conditions and lesion types. METHODS: This prospective, single-arm study enrolled 1,097 subjects with 1,098 carotid artery lesions at 99 study centers. Investigators were grouped into one of three tiers according to whether they had a high, medium, or low level of previous CAS experience and were also categorized by their CAS-credential-based training requirements for the CABANA study. Follow-up at 30 days includes clinical evaluation and independent neurological and NIH stroke scale assessments. The primary endpoint rate of 30-day composite stroke, death, and MI, as well as the rates of these individual events, will be evaluated across the overall study, by physician experience tier, and by physician training tier. DISCUSSION: The evaluation of periprocedural CAS safety in a real-world environment with modern devices in high-surgical-risk patients treated by physicians with a broad range of training and experience will better inform treatment decisions in the future.