Comprehensive radiation shield minimizes operator radiation exposure in coronary and structural heart procedures.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the efficacy of a novel comprehensive shield designed to minimize radiation exposure (RE) to Physicians performing coronary and structural heart procedures. BACKGROUND: The Protego™ radiation shielding system (Image Diagnostics Inc., Fitchburg, Ma) is designed to provide comprehensive protection from RE and has been State certified sufficient to allow operators to perform procedures without orthopedically burdensome lead aprons. METHODS: This single center two-group cohort study assessed the efficacy of this shield in a large number of cardiac procedures (coronary and structural), comparing operator RE compared to standard protection methods (personal lead apparel and "drop down" shield). RESULTS: The Protego™ system reduced operator RE by 99 % compared to Standard Protection. RE was significantly lower at both "Head" level by thyroid median dose 0.0 (0.0, 0,0) vs 5.7 (2.9, 8.2) µSv (p < 0.001), as well as waist dose 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) vs 10.0 (5.0, 16.6) µSv (p < 0.001). "Zero" Total RE was documented by Raysafe™ in 64 % (n = 32) of TAVR cases and 73.2 % (n = 183) of the coronary cases utilizing Protego™. In contrast, standard protection did not achieve "Zero" exposure in a single case. These dramatic differences in RE were achieved despite higher fluoroscopy times in the Protego™ arm (11.9 ± 8.6 vs 14.3 ± 12.5 min, p = 0.015). Per case procedural exposure measured by Dose Area Product was higher in the Protego™ group compared to standard protection (115.4 ± 139.2 vs 74.9 ± 69.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Protego™ shield provides total body RE protection for operators performing both coronary and structural heart procedures. This shield allows procedural performance without the need for personal lead aprons and has potential to reduce catheterization laboratory occupational health hazards.

Long-term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Lotus Valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR: A Secondary Analysis of the REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is of interest given that longitudinal data on mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves are limited. The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) randomized clinical trial compared the mechanically expanded Lotus valve with the self-expanding CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Objective: To describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis assessed the final 5-year clinical, functional, and echocardiographic outcomes of 912 patients from the REPRISE III trial, which was conducted at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015. Patients had high risk for aortic stenosis or severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2014, to May 21, 2021. Intervention: Lotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up. Results: A total of 912 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.8 [7.3] years; 463 women [50.8%]) were randomized to either the Lotus valve group (n = 607) or CoreValve/EvolutR group (n = 305), with a baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 6.8%. Clinical follow-up data from the REPRISE III trial were available for 581 patients (95.7%) in the Lotus valve group and 285 patients (93.4%) in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. At 5 years, the cumulative event rate for all-cause mortality was 50.9% in the Lotus valve group vs 52.8% in the CoreValve/EvolutR group (P = .59). Disabling stroke was less frequent with the Lotus valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR (cumulative event rates, 8.3% vs 12.2%; P = .04), whereas the cumulative event rates for overall stroke were similar in both groups (14.1% vs 15.3%; P = .38). Insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (38.9% vs 27.3%; P < .001) and detection of prosthetic aortic valve thrombosis (5.8% vs 1.8%; P = .007) were more common in the Lotus valve group than in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. A smaller proportion of patients who received the Lotus valve experienced valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and required the use of a second valve (1.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001) during the procedure compared with those who received the CoreValve/EvolutR. Compared with the Lotus valve group, the CoreValve/EvolutR group had a significantly lower mean (SD) aortic gradient (7.8 [4.2] mm Hg vs 12.6 [6.7] mm Hg; P < .001) and larger valve areas (1.57 [0.56] cm2 vs 1.42 [0.42] cm2; P = .10). After 5 years, the proportion of patients with moderate or greater paravalvular leak was not significantly higher with the CoreValve/EvolutR than with the Lotus valve (1.9% vs 0%; P = .31); however, the proportion of patients with mild paravalvular leak was higher in the CoreValve/EvolutR group compared with the Lotus valve group (23.1% vs 7.8%; P = .006). Long-term, similar improvements in New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score were observed in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: The REPRISE III trial found that, at 5 years, the clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve were comparable to those of the CoreValve/EvolutR and that the Lotus valve was safe and effective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

Algorithms for challenging scenarios encountered in transradial intervention.

Transradial intervention (TRI) was first introduced by Lucien Campeau in 1989 and since then has created a lasting impact in the field of interventional cardiology. Several studies have demonstrated that TRI is associated with fewer vascular site complications, offer earlier ambulation and greater post-procedural comfort. Patients presenting with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) have experienced survival benefit and higher quality-of-life metrics as well with TRI. While both the updated scientific statement by the American Heart Association and the 2017 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a "radial first" approach there appears to be a lag in physicians adapting TRI as the preferred vascular access. We present a review focusing on identification and management of TRA related challenges and complications using a systematic algorithmic approach.

Clinical Implications of Physical Function and Resilience in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background Gait speed is a reliable measure of physical function and frailty in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Slow gait speed pre-TAVR predicts worse clinical outcomes post-TAVR. The consequences of improved versus worsened physical function post-TAVR are unknown. Methods and Results The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) trial randomized high/extreme risk patients to receive a mechanically-expanded or self-expanding transcatheter heart valve. Of 874 patients who underwent TAVR, 576 with complete data at baseline and 1 year were included in this analysis. Slow gait speed in the 5-m walk test was defined as <0.83 m/s. A clinically meaningful improvement (≥0.1 m/s) in gait speed 1 year after TAVR occurred in 39% of patients, 35% exhibited no change, and 26% declined (≥0.1 m/s). Among groups defined by baseline/1-year post-TAVR gait speeds, 1- to 2-year mortality or hospitalization rates were as follows: 6.6% (normal/normal), 8.0% (slow/normal), 20.9% (normal/slow), and 21.5% (slow/slow). After adjustment, slow gait speed at 1 year (regardless of baseline speed) was associated with a 3.5-fold increase in death/hospitalization between 1 and 2 years compared with those with normal baseline/1-year gait speed. Patients whose slow gait speed normalized at 1 year had no increased risk. One-year, but not baseline, gait speed was associated with death or hospitalization between 1 and 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83 per 0.1 m/s faster gait; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93, P=0.001). Conclusions Marked heterogeneity exists in the trajectory of physical function after TAVR and this, more than baseline function, has clinical consequences. Identifying and optimizing factors associated with physical resilience after TAVR may improve outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02202434.

2-Year Outcomes After Stenting of Lipid-Rich and Nonrich Coronary Plaques.

BACKGROUND: Autopsy studies suggest that implanting stents in lipid-rich plaque (LRP) may be associated with adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between LRP detected by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease treated with contemporary drug-eluting stents. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter registry, NIRS was performed in patients undergoing coronary angiography and possible percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Lipid core burden index (LCBI) was calculated as the fraction of pixels with the probability of LRP >0.6 within a region of interest. MaxLCBI4mm was defined as the maximum LCBI within any 4-mm-long segment. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) included cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, or unplanned revascularization or rehospitalization for progressive angina or unstable angina. Events were subcategorized as culprit (treated) lesion-related, nonculprit (untreated) lesion-related, or indeterminate. RESULTS: Among 1,999 patients who were enrolled in the COLOR (Chemometric Observations of Lipid Core Plaques of Interest in Native Coronary Arteries Registry), PCI was performed in 1,621 patients and MACE occurred in 18.0% of patients, of which 8.3% were culprit lesion-related, 10.7% were nonculprit lesion-related, and 3.1% were indeterminate during 2-year follow-up. Complications from NIRS imaging occurred in 9 patients (0.45%), which resulted in 1 peri-procedural myocardial infarction and 1 emergent coronary bypass. Pre-PCI NIRS imaging was obtained in 1,189 patients, and the 2-year rate of culprit lesion-related MACE was not significantly associated with maxLCBI4mm (hazard ratio of maxLCBI4mm per 100: 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.96 to 1.17; p = 0.28) after adjusting clinical and procedural factors. CONCLUSIONS: Following PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents, stent implantation in NIRS-defined LRPs was not associated with increased periprocedural or late adverse outcomes compared with those without significant lipid.

Pacemaker Implantation and Dependency After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the REPRISE III Trial.

Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement expands to younger and/or lower risk patients, the long-term consequences of permanent pacemaker implantation are a concern. Pacemaker dependency and impact have not been methodically assessed in transcatheter aortic valve replacement trials. We report the incidence and predictors of pacemaker implantation and pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Lotus valve. Methods and Results A total of 912 patients with high/extreme surgical risk and symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomized 2:1 (Lotus:CoreValve) in REPRISE III (The Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) trial. Systematic assessment of pacemaker dependency was pre-specified in the trial design. Pacemaker implantation within 30 days was more frequent with Lotus than CoreValve. By multivariable analysis, predictors of pacemaker implantation included baseline right bundle branch block and depth of implantation; diabetes mellitus was also a predictor with Lotus. No association between new pacemaker implantation and clinical outcomes was found. Pacemaker dependency was dynamic (30 days: 43%; 1 year: 50%) and not consistent for individual patients over time. Predictors of pacemaker dependency at 30 days included baseline right bundle branch block, female sex, and depth of implantation. No differences in mortality or stroke were found between patients who were pacemaker dependent or not at 30 days. Rehospitalization was higher in patients who were not pacemaker dependent versus patients without a pacemaker or those who were dependent. Conclusions Pacemaker implantation was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Most patients with a new pacemaker at 30 days were not dependent at 1 year. Mortality and stroke were similar between patients with or without pacemaker dependency and patients without a pacemaker. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier NCT02202434.

Clinical Outcomes Before and After Complete Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Resorption: Five-Year Follow-Up From the ABSORB III Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) provides early drug delivery and mechanical support similar to those of metallic drug-eluting stents, followed by complete resorption in ≈3 years with recovery of vascular structure and function. The ABSORB III trial demonstrated noninferior rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year with BVS compared with cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents. Between 1 and 3 years and cumulative to 3 years, adverse event rates (particularly target vessel myocardial infarction and scaffold thrombosis) were increased after BVS. We sought to assess clinical outcomes after BVS through 5 years, including beyond the 3-year time point of complete scaffold resorption. METHODS: Clinical outcomes from ABSORB III were analyzed by randomized device (intention to treat) cumulative to 5 years and between 3 and 5 years. RESULTS: Rates of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, and scaffold thrombosis were increased through the 5-year follow-up with BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents. However, between 3 and 5 years, reductions in the relative hazards of the BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents were observed, particularly for target lesion failure (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.55-1.24] versus 1.35 [95% CI, 1.02-1.78]; Pint=0.052) and scaffold thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.02-2.87] versus 3.23 [95% CI, 1.25-8.30]; Pint=0.056) compared with the 0- to 3-year time period. CONCLUSIONS: In the ABSORB III trial, cumulative 5-year adverse event rates were increased after BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents. However, the period of excess risk for BVS ended at 3 years, coincident with complete scaffold resorption. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01751906.

Urgent mechanical circulatory support and transcatheter mitral valve repair for refractory hemodynamic compromise.

Patients presenting with hemodynamic instability attributable to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and concomitant severe mitral regurgitation (MR) are increasingly recognized and pose complex management challenges. Surgical therapy is typically precluded owing to prohibitive mortality. The role of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in such cases is well established; however, such interventions may be neither sufficient to achieve optimal stability nor prove definitive. The advent of novel catheter-based mitral repair modalities now offers primary decisive therapeutic intervention. Three cases of cardiogenic shock with severe MR illustrate the salutary hemodynamic and clinical responses to percutaneous mechanical support and valve repair by mitral clip.

Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical vs Self-expanding Valves: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To our knowledge, REPRISE III is the first large randomized comparison of 2 different transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms: the mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific) and self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic). Objective: To evaluate outcomes of Lotus vs CoreValve after 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 912 patients with high/extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, were randomized 2:1 to receive Lotus (607 [66.6%]) or CoreValve (305 [33.4%] at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia. The first 2-year visit occurred on October 17, 2016, and the last was conducted on April 12, 2018. Clinical and echocardiographic assessments are complete through 2 years and will continue annually through 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Other clinical factors included overall stroke, disabling stroke, repeated procedures, rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation. Echocardiographic analyses included effective orifice area, mean gradient, and paravalvular leaks (PVLs). Results: Of 912 participants, the mean (SD) age was 82.8 (7.3) years, 465 (51%) were women, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 6.8% (4.0%). At 2 years, all-cause death was 21.3% with Lotus vs 22.5% with CoreValve (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26; P = .67) and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 22.8% with Lotus and 27.0% with CoreValve (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07; P = .14). Overall stroke was 8.4% vs 11.4% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; P = .21); disabling stroke was more frequent with CoreValve vs Lotus (4.7% Lotus vs 8.6% CoreValve; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.93; P = .02). More Lotus patients received a new permanent pacemaker (41.7% vs 26.1%; HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.41-2.49; P < .01) or had a valve thrombosis (3.0% vs 0.0%; P < .01) compared with CoreValve. More patients who received CoreValve experienced a repeated procedure (0.6% Lotus vs 2.9% CoreValve; HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.70; P < .01), valve migration (0.0% vs 0.7%; P = .05), or embolization (0.0% vs 2.0%; P < .01) than Lotus. Valve areas remained significantly larger and the mean gradient was lower with CoreValve than Lotus (valve area, mean [SD]: Lotus, 1.53 [0.49] cm2 vs CoreValve, 1.76 [0.51] cm2; P < .01; valve gradient, mean [SD]: Lotus, 13.0 [6.7] mm Hg vs 8.1 [3.7] mm Hg; P < .01). Moderate or greater PVL was more frequent with CoreValve (0.3% Lotus vs 3.8% CoreValve; P < .01) at 2 years. Larger improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were observed with Lotus compared with CoreValve (improved by ≥1 NYHA class: Lotus, 338 of 402 [84.1%] vs CoreValve, 143 of 189 [75.7%]; P = .01; improved by ≥2 NYHA classes: 122 of 402 [37.3%] vs 65 of 305 [21.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: After 2 years, all-cause mortality rates, mortality or disabling stroke were similar between Lotus and CoreValve. Disabling stroke, functional class, valve migration, and PVL favored the Lotus arm whereas valve hemodynamics, thrombosis, and new pacemaker implantation favored the CoreValve arm. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

Effect of Mechanically Expanded vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Mortality and Major Adverse Clinical Events in High-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is established for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leak occur. Objective: To evaluate if a mechanically expanded valve (MEV) is noninferior to an approved self-expanding valve (SEV) in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: The REPRISE III trial was conducted in 912 patients with high or extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, with final follow-up on March 8, 2017. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either an MEV (n = 607) or an SEV (n = 305). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety end point was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, life-threatening or major bleeding, stage 2/3 acute kidney injury, and major vascular complications tested for noninferiority (margin, 10.5%). The primary effectiveness end point was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, and moderate or greater paravalvular leak tested for noninferiority (margin, 9.5%). If noninferiority criteria were met, the secondary end point of 1-year moderate or greater paravalvular leak was tested for superiority in the full analysis data set. Results: Among 912 randomized patients (mean age, 82.8 [SD, 7.3] years; 463 [51%] women; predicted risk of mortality, 6.8%), 874 (96%) were evaluable at 1 year. The primary safety composite end point at 30 days occurred in 20.3% of MEV patients and 17.2% of SEV patients (difference, 3.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to 8.3%; P = .003 for noninferiority). At 1 year, the primary effectiveness composite end point occurred in 15.4% with the MEV and 25.5% with the SEV (difference, -10.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to -4.4%; P<.001 for noninferiority). The 1-year rates of moderate or severe paravalvular leak were 0.9% for the MEV and 6.8% for the SEV (difference, -6.1%; 95% CI, -9.6% to -2.6%; P < .001). The superiority analysis for primary effectiveness was statistically significant (difference, -10.2%; 95% CI, -16.3% to -4.0%; P < .001). The MEV had higher rates of new pacemaker implants (35.5% vs 19.6%; P < .001) and valve thrombosis (1.5% vs 0%) but lower rates of repeat procedures (0.2% vs 2.0%), valve-in-valve deployments (0% vs 3.7%), and valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, use of the MEV compared with the SEV did not result in inferior outcomes for the primary safety end point or the primary effectiveness end point. These findings suggest that the MEV may be a useful addition for TAVR in high-risk patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

The State of the Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffold: Consensus From an Expert Panel.

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.

3-Year Clinical Outcomes With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffolds: The ABSORB III Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb everolimus-eluting poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) provides early drug delivery and mechanical support functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents (DES), followed by complete bioresorption in approximately 3 years with recovery of vascular structure and function. The ABSORB III trial demonstrated noninferior rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TVMI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year in 2,008 patients with coronary artery disease randomized to BVS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess clinical outcomes through 3 years following BVS implantation. METHODS: Clinical outcomes from the ABSORB III trial were analyzed by randomized treatment assignment cumulative through 3 years, and between 1 and 3 years. RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure through 3 years occurred in 13.4% of BVS patients and 10.4% of EES patients (p = 0.06), and between 1 and 3 years in 7.0% versus 6.0% of patients, respectively (p = 0.39). TVMI through 3 years was increased with BVS (8.6% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.03), as was device thrombosis (2.3% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.01). In BVS-assigned patients, treatment of very small vessels (those with quantitatively determined reference vessel diameter <2.25 mm) was an independent predictor of 3-year TLF and scaffold thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: In the ABSORB III trial, 3-year adverse event rates were higher with BVS than EES, particularly TVMI and device thrombosis. Longer-term clinical follow-up is required to determine whether bioresorption of the polymeric scaffold will influence patient prognosis. (ABSORB III Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] [ABSORB-III]; NCT01751906).

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: what have we learned from randomized-controlled clinical trials?

Although current everolimus-eluting coronary stents have shown improved event-free survival within the first year following implantation compared with bare-metal stents or earlier generation drug-eluting stents, they remain associated with an ongoing risk for adverse outcomes (thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and restenosis) beyond 1 year at rates similar to those observed following bare-metal stent deployment. This ongoing very late hazard has been attributed to the permanent presence of the metal frame and/or polymer in these stents. The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) has been developed to provide mechanical support and drug-delivery functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents, followed by complete resorption with recovery of more normal vascular structure and function, thus avoiding the limitations associated with permanent metallic endovascular prostheses. Absorb BVS has shown safety and efficacy in the dedicated clinical trial development program of Abbott Vascular and in an array of investigator-sponsored studies involving a broad spectrum of clinical (patient) as well as coronary anatomic complexity. Longer-term evidence, largely limited to single-arm studies, appears to reflect durable safety and efficacy and suggests Absorb BVS to be an attractive therapeutic option. Interim evidence from a series of randomized-clinical trials (RCTs) comparing Absorb BVS with the Xience cobalt-chromium metallic everolimus-eluting stent has shown noninferiority of Absorb BVS with respect to target lesion failure (composite occurrence of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) beyond the first year, with no statistically significant differences in other safety/efficacy measures. However, concerns do exist in terms of increased rates of scaffold thrombosis, the risk for which may be mitigated by improved patient and lesion selection, procedural technique, and device iteration. We provide an overview of the evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention, in-vivo characterization of Absorb BVS resorption, and a summary with a critical evaluation of available evidence from RCTs, pooled analyses, and meta-analyses of RCTs for the safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS obtained primarily following the treatment of noncomplex coronary lesions in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and/or stabilized acute coronary syndromes.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: Clinical outcomes from randomized controlled trials.

The permanent metal prosthesis common to bare metal stents (BMS) as well as both first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) following treatment of coronary artery disease represents a long-lasting substrate for late adverse coronary events including restenosis, thrombosis, and neoatherosclerosis. Following resorbtion, bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) may eliminate this nidus and improve late outcomes through restoration of the vessel to more normal vascular structure and function. BRS represents a single platform which incorporates the mechanical features of metallic stents to provide safe and effective revascularization, suppression of restenosis and prevention of constrictive remodeling with long-term restoration of the treated vessel to a more natural state. The landscape of BRS is rapidly evolving with new materials which target various performance goals for the duration of vascular support and polymer resorption time. The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS), recently approved by United States Food and Drug Administration, has extensive clinical evidence to date in support of its clinical efficacy and safety. Recently published data from well-executed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as part of the ABSORB Clinical development program along with other investigator-initiated trials provide insights into the safety and performance of this device in patients with de novo coronary lesions as well in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This review provides a comprehensive, outcomes based understanding of the available evidence from RCTs that offer head-to-head comparisons of Absorb BVS with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES). © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Early U.S. Experience Following FDA Approval of the ABBOTT Vascular Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold: Optimal Deployment Technique Using High Resolution Coronary Artery Imaging.

Drug eluting metallic stents have been the "gold standard" in the percutaneous management of coronary artery disease. Recent publications have suggested that the ABSORBTM bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) may represent a reasonable alternative, in well selected cases.

First US experience following FDA approval of the ABBOTT vascular bioresorbable vascular scaffold for the treatment of coronary artery disease.

Drug eluting stents are considered the "gold standard" for the percutaneous treatment of coronary artery disease. Recent publications have suggested that a reasonable alternative, in well selected cases, may be the ABSORBTM bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) stent. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary artery disease who receive metallic drug-eluting coronary stents, adverse events such as late target-lesion failure may be related in part to the persistent presence of the metallic stent frame in the coronary-vessel wall. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds have been developed to attempt to improve long-term outcomes. METHODS: In this large, multicenter, randomized trial, 2008 patients with stable or unstable angina were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular (Absorb) scaffold (1322 patients) or an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium (Xience) stent (686 patients). The primary end point, which was tested for both noninferiority (margin, 4.5 percentage points for the risk difference) and superiority, was target-lesion failure (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) at 1 year. RESULTS: Target-lesion failure at 1 year occurred in 7.8% of patients in the Absorb group and in 6.1% of patients in the Xience group (difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 3.9; P=0.007 for noninferiority and P=0.16 for superiority). There was no significant difference between the Absorb group and the Xience group in rates of cardiac death (0.6% and 0.1%, respectively; P=0.29), target-vessel myocardial infarction (6.0% and 4.6%, respectively; P=0.18), or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (3.0% and 2.5%, respectively; P=0.50). Device thrombosis within 1 year occurred in 1.5% of patients in the Absorb group and in 0.7% of patients in the Xience group (P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, randomized trial, treatment of noncomplex obstructive coronary artery disease with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold, as compared with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent, was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with respect to target-lesion failure at 1 year. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; ABSORB III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01751906.).