Mechanical properties of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to the metallic everolimus-eluting stent.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) represent an innovative treatment option for coronary artery disease. Clinical and angiographic results seem promising, however, data on its immediate procedural performance are still scarce. The aim of our study was to assess the mechanical properties of BVS by Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) in clinical routine. METHODS: Post-implantation OCT images of 40 BVS were retrospectively compared to those of 40 metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Post-procedural device related morphological features were assessed. This included incidences of gross underexpansion and the stent eccentricity index (SEI, minimum/maximum diameter) as a measure for focal radial strength. RESULTS: Patients receiving BVS were younger than those with EES (54.0 ± 11.2 years versus 61.7 ± 11.4 years, p = 0.012), the remaining baseline, vessel and lesion characteristics were comparable between groups. Lesion pre-dilatation was more frequently performed and inflation time was longer in the BVS than in the EES group (n = 34 versus n = 23, p = 0.006 and 44.2 ± 12.8 versus 25.6 ± 8.4 seconds, p < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in maximal inflation pressures and post-dilatation frequencies with non-compliant balloons between groups. Whereas gross device underexpansion was not significantly different, SEI was significantly lower in the BVS group (n = 12 (30 %) versus n = 14 (35 %), p = 0.812 and 0.69 ± 0.08 versus 0.76 ± 0.09, p < 0.001, respectively). There was no difference in major adverse cardiac event-rate at six months. CONCLUSION: Our data show that focal radial expansion was significantly reduced in BVS compared to EES in a clinical routine setting using no routine post-dilatation protocol. Whether these findings have impact on scaffold mid-term results as well as on clinical outcome has to be investigated in larger, randomized trials.

Outcome after Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Depends on Age in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease - An Analysis of Relative Survival in a Multicenter Cohort and an OCT Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Age is a strong predictor of survival in patients with coronary artery disease. In elder patients with increasing co-morbidities percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with more complications and worse outcome. The calculation of relative survival rates adjusts for the "background" mortality in the general population by correcting for age and gender. We analyzed if elder patients after elective PCI have a worse relative survival compared to younger patient groups. METHODS: A total of 8,342 patients who underwent elective PCI at two high volume centers between 1998 and 2009 were analyzed. RESULTS: The survival of our patients after PCI (observed survival) was slightly lower compared to the general population (expected survival) resulting in a slightly decreasing relative survival curve. In a multivariate Cox regression model age amongst others was a strong predictor of survival. Stratifying patients according to their age the relative survival curves of younger patients (Quartile 1: <58 years; 2,046 patients), elder patients (Quartile 3: 66-73 years; 2,090 patients) and very old patients (Quartile 4: >73 years; 2,307 patients) were similar. The relative survival of mid-aged patients (Quartile 2: 58-65 years; 1,899 patients) was better than that of all other patient groups. The profile of cardiovascular risk factors differs between the various groups resulting in different composition and burden of coronary plaques in an optical coherence tomography sub-study. CONCLUSION: Patients after elective PCI have a slightly worse long-term survival compared to the age- and sex-matched general population. This is also true for different groups of age except for mid-aged patients between 58 and 63 years. Elder patients between 66 and 73 years and above 73 years have a similar relative survival compared to younger patients below 58 years, and might therefore have similar benefit from elective PCI.

Comparison of magnetic wire navigation with the conventional wire technique for percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions: a randomised, controlled study.

Wire crossing of a chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) is time consuming and limited by the amount of contrast agent and time of radiation exposure. Magnetic wire navigation (MWN) might accelerate wire crossing by maintaining a coaxial vessel orientation. This study compares MWN with the conventional approach for recanalization of CTOs. Forty symptomatic patients with CTO were randomised to MWN (n = 20) or conventional approach (n = 20) for antegrade crossing of the occlusion. In the intention-to-treat analysis, MWN showed a shorter crossing time (412 versus 1131 s; p = 0.001), and, consequently, lower usage of contrast agent (primary endpoint 42 versus 116 ml; p = 0.01), and lower radiation exposure (dose-area product: 29 versus 80 Gy*cm(2); p = 0.002) during wire crossing compared to the conventional approach. Accordingly, in the per-protocol analysis, the wire-crossing rate was, in trend, higher using the conventional approach (17 of 31) compared to MWN (9 of 28; p = 0.08). The use of MWN for revascularisation of CTOs is feasible and reduces crossing time, use of contrast agent, and radiation exposure. However, due to a broader selection of wires, the conventional approach enables wire crossing in cases failed by MWN and seems to be the more successful choice.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease compared to coronary artery bypass surgery five-years after intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES), and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) was analyzed in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease over a 5-year follow-up. BACKGROUND: DES implantation reducing revascularization rate and associated costs might be attractive for health economics as compared to CABG. METHODS: Consecutive patients with multivessel DES-PCI (n = 114, 3.3 ± 1.2 DES/patient) or CABG (n = 85, 2.7 ± 0.9 grafts/patient) were included prospectively. Primary endpoint was cost-benefit of multivessel DES-PCI over CABG, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Secondary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), all-cause death, revascularization, and stroke. RESULTS: Despite multiple uses for DES, in-hospital costs were significantly less for PCI than CABG, with 4551 €/patient difference between the groups. At 5-years, the overall costs remained higher for CABG patients (mean difference 5400 € between groups). Cost-effectiveness planes including all patients or subgroups of elderly patients, diabetic patients, or Syntax score >32 indicated that CABG is a more effective, more costly treatment mode for multivessel disease. At the 5-year follow-up, a higher incidence of MACCE (37.7% vs. 25.8%; log rank P = 0.048) and a trend towards more AMI/death/stroke (25.4% vs. 21.2%, log rank P = 0.359) was observed in PCI as compared to CABG. ICER indicated 45615 € or 126683 € to prevent one MACCE or AMI/death/stroke if CABG is performed. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis of DES-PCI vs. CABG demonstrated that CABG is the most effective, but most costly, treatment for preventing MACCE in patients with multivessel disease.