One-year clinical performance of ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: Results from the RAI registry.

OBJECTIVES: To report 1-year clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) population. BACKGROUND: BVS use has rapidly extended to high-risk patients as those presenting with ACS. To date limited data have been reported on BVS performance in ACS patients. METHODS: RAI is a multicenter, prospective registry that included 1,505 patients treated with at least 1 successful BVS implantation. A subgroup analysis on ACS patients was performed and the 1-year outcomes of this cohort compared to the remaining stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) population are reported here. Coprimary endpoints were target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of the patients presented with ACS, of whom 36.5% with ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. ACS patients were significantly younger, with a better cardiovascular risk profile, a lower rate of multivessel disease, chronic total occlusion or in-stent restenosis and a lower Syntax score. Predilation and postdilation were performed in 97.4% and in 96.5% of cases, respectively. No differences were noted in terms of TIMI 3 final flow, but acute gain was greater in ACS compared to SCAD group (P < 0.001). At one-year follow-up no differences were found in terms of TLR (3.3% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.98), and device-oriented composite end-point (4.3% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.4) between ACS and SCAD groups. The rate of definite/probable ScT was numerically higher in ACS vs. stable CAD patients (1.3% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the use of BVS in ACS patients is associated with a numerically higher rate of ScT compared to SCAD population numerically higher, but without statistical significance.

"Full-plastic jacket" with everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: Clinical outcomes in the multicenter prospective RAI registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02298413).

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate mid-term clinical outcomes of patients treated with 'full-plastic jacket' (FPJ) everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) implantation. BACKGROUND: FPJ with BRS may represent an interesting option for patient with diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD), but data on the clinical impact of FPJ using the Absorb BRS are scant. METHODS: FPJ was defined as the implantation of >56 mm of overlapping BRS in at least one vessel. We compared outcomes of patients receiving Absorb FPJ vs. non-FPJ within the multicenter prospective RAI Registry. RESULTS: Out of 1505 consecutive patients enrolled in the RAI registry, 1384 were eligible for this analysis. Of these, 143 (10.3%) were treated with BRS FPJ. At a median follow-up of 649 days, no differences were observed between FPJ and non-FPJ groups in terms of the device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE) (5.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.675) or the patient-related composite endpoint (PoCE) (20.9% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.149). Patients receiving FPJ had higher rates of target vessel repeat revascularization (TVR) (11.2% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.042). In the FPJ group, there was no cardiac death and only one (very late) stent thrombosis (ST) (0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Mid-term outcomes of a FPJ PCI strategy in the setting of diffuse CAD did not show a significant increase in composite device- and patient-related events, with rates of cardiac death and ST comparable to non-FPJ Absorb BRS implantation. However, these findings are hypothesis generating and requiring further validation.

Clinical, Angiographic, and Procedural Correlates of Very Late Absorb Scaffold Thrombosis: Multistudy Registry Results.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify independent correlates of very late scaffold thrombosis (VLST) from an analysis of consecutively treated patients from 15 multicenter studies. BACKGROUND: Recent analyses suggest an increased risk for VLST with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold compared with drug-eluting stents, but insights as to correlates of risk are limited. METHODS: A total of 55 patients were identified with scaffold thrombosis. They were matched 2:1 with control subjects selected randomly from patients without thrombosis from the same study. Quantitative coronary angiography was available for 96.4% of patients. Multiple logistic and Cox regression analysis were used to identify significant independent outcome correlates from 6 pre-specified characteristics. RESULTS: Patients had scaffold thrombosis at a median of 20 months (interquartile range: 17 to 27 months). Control subjects were followed for 36 months (interquartile range: 24 to 38 months). For the combined groups, reference vessel diameter (RVD) was 2.84 ± 0.50 mm, scaffold length was 26 ± 16 mm, and post-dilatation was performed in 56%. Univariate correlates of thrombosis were smaller nominal scaffold/RVD ratio (linear p = 0.001; ratio <1.18:1; odds ratio: 7.5; p = 0.002) and larger RVD (linear p = 0.001; >2.72 mm; odds ratio: 3.4; p = 0.001). Post-dilatation at ≥16 atm, post-dilatation balloon/scaffold ratio, final percentage stenosis, and dual antiplatelet therapy were not correlated with VLST. Only scaffold/RVD ratio remained a significant independent correlate of VLST (p = 0.001), as smaller ratio was correlated with RVD (p < 0.001). Post hoc analysis of 8 other potential covariates revealed no other correlates of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In the present analysis, the largest to date of its type, relative scaffold undersizing was the strongest determinant of VLST. Given current understanding of "scaffold dismantling," this finding likely has ramifications for all bioresorbable scaffolds.

Clinical, Angiographic, and Procedural Correlates of Very Late Absorb Scaffold Thrombosis: Multistudy Registry Results

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify independent correlates of very late scaffold thrombosis (VLST) from an analysis of consecutively treated patients from 15 multicenter studies. BACKGROUND: Recent analyses suggest an increased risk for VLST with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold compared with drug-eluting stents, but insights as to correlates of risk are limited. METHODS: A total of 55 patients were identified with scaffold thrombosis. They were matched 2:1 with control subjects selected randomly from patients without thrombosis from the same study. Quantitative coronary angiography was available for 96.4% of patients. Multiple logistic and Cox regression analysis were used to identify significant independent outcome correlates from 6 pre-specified characteristics. RESULTS: Patients had scaffold thrombosis at a median of 20 months (interquartile range: 17 to 27 months). Control subjects were followed for 36 months (interquartile range: 24 to 38 months). For the combined groups, reference vessel diameter (RVD) was 2.84 0.50 mm, scaffold length was 26 16 mm, and post-dilatation was performed in56%. Univariate correlates of thrombosis were smaller nominal scaffold/RVD ratio (linear p»0.001; ratio<1.18:1; odds ratio: 7.5; p»0.002) and larger RVD (linear p»0.001;>2.72 mm; odds ratio: 3.4; p»0.001). Post-dilatation at$16 atm, post-dilatation balloon/scaffold ratio, final percentage stenosis, and dual antiplatelet therapy were not correlated with VLST. Only scaffold/RVD ratio remained a significant independent correlate of VLST (p»0.001), as smaller ratio was correlated with RVD (p<0.001). Post hoc analysis of 8 other potential covariates revealed no other correlates of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In the present analysis, the largest to date of its type, relative scaffold undersizing was the strongest determinant of VLST. Given current understanding of "scaffold dismantling," this finding likely has ramifications for all bioresorbable scaffolds.

Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stent in small vessel disease: A propensity matched analysis of COMPARE II, RAI, and MAASSTAD-ABSORB studies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with small vessel disease (SVD) are at higher risk of adverse events after PCI compared to non-SVD patients. In this subset, the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) has raised particular concern. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare outcomes of Absorb BVS versus a 2nd-generation metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in the SVD setting, by pooling patients from three large, prospective studies. METHODS: Patients with SVD (reference vessel diameter ≤2.75 mm by QCA) and treated with Absorb BVS were identified in the Italian RAI and the MAASSTAD-Absorb registries. EES controls were identified in the COMPARE II Trial. We performed a propensity-score matching using several clinical and angiographic variables. Implantation technique was not object of matching, being device-specific. RESULTS: Out of 4635 enrolled subjects, 1147 belonged to the SVD population. After matching, we obtained 337 pairs of patients. High clinical and angiographic complexity was found in both groups. Predilation and postdilation rates were significantly higher in BVS patients. No differences were found in terms of the device-oriented composite end-point at 1-year (HR = 1.08, 95%CI 0.5-2.3, P = .8) and 2-years (HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.68-2.43, P = .5). Notwithstanding, higher incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was observed in the BVS group at 1 year (HR 4.7, 95%CI 0.8-31.4, P = .08) and 2-years (HR = 8.34 95%CI 1.1-60.2, P = .04). CONCLUSION: In this propensity-matched analysis pooling SVD patients of three large prospective studies, incidence of composite device-related events was comparable between BVS and EES up to 2 years follow-up. However, higher rates of stent thrombosis were found in the BVS group.

Clinical findings after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in an unrestricted cohort of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the RAI registry).

BACKGROUND: The bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) technology may be an appealing option in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. However, the available evidence on its use in this challenging subset is limited. METHODS: Registro Absorb Italiano (RAI) is a multicenter, prospective registry that aims to assess BVS performance through a 5-year follow-up of all consecutive patients who undergone at least 1 successful BVS implantation. As a part of it, a subgroup analysis in STEMI patients was performed and the outcomes of this cohort compared to the remaining population (defined as "non-STEMI") are reported here. RESULTS: Among the 1505 patients enrolled, 317 (21.1%) had STEMI on admission. Among those, 232 (73.2%) underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 12 h from symptom onset; 64 (20.2%) were late-comers (>12 h); 16 (5%) underwent PCI after successful thrombolysis while 5 (1.6%) underwent rescue-PCI. At a median follow-up time of 12 months (IQR 6-20 months) no differences were noticed between STEMI and "non-STEMI" groups in terms of device-oriented composite endpoint (4.1% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.3) and its singular components: ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (3.2% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.7), target-vessel myocardial infarction (3.2% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.7) and cardiac death (0.6% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.9). The rate of definite/probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) was numerically higher but not significant in the STEMI group (2.5% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: BVS implantation in an unrestricted cohort of STEMI patients is associated with a numerically higher rate of ScT compared to the non-STEMI group. Further studies exploring the potential clinical impact of a pre-specified BVS implantation strategy in this high-risk clinical setting are needed.

One-year clinical outcomes after unrestricted implantation of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (RAI registry).

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess outcomes following Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BVS) implantation in an unrestricted clinical practice according to an "on-label" versus "off-label" indication. METHODS AND RESULTS: RAI is a prospective registry, investigating BVS performance in different lesion subsets. No specific exclusion criteria were applied. Co-primary endpoints were target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite/probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) at one year. A total of 1,505 patients (1,969 lesions) were enrolled. In 58% of patients, BVS was implanted in at least one off-label subset according to the manufacturer's instructions for use. Predilatation was performed in 98.5% of the cases, and post-dilatation in 96.8%. At one-year follow-up, TLR and ScT rates were 3.3% and 1.3%, respectively. TLR was significantly higher in the off-label group (4.0% vs. 2.2%, HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.0-3.4; p=0.05) while a trend towards a higher ScT rate was observed in the off-label group (1.7% vs. 0.6%, HR 2.7, 95% CI: 0.9-8.2; p=0.06). At multivariate analysis, treatment of in-stent restenosis, chronic total occlusion and BVS diameter were independent predictors of TLR. CONCLUSIONS: Our data from a real-world population suggest that BVS could be associated with acceptable one-year clinical outcomes when meticulously implanted. However, a higher rate of adverse events was observed when this device was used in off-label lesions.

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.

Clinical, Angiographic, and Procedural Correlates of Acute, Subacute, and Late Absorb Scaffold Thrombosis.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify and verify independent correlates of device thrombosis from an analysis of multicenter trials and registries. BACKGROUND: Recent analyses suggest an increased risk of device thrombosis with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) implantation compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, and data from moderate size studies suggest a risk relationship to vessel size and technique. METHODS: From 8,771 consecutively treated patients, 105 patients (1.2%) were identified with scaffold thrombosis within 1 year of implantation. They were matched 2:1 with controls selected randomly from nonthrombosis patients. Data-restricted multiple logistic analysis was used to identify significant independent covariates of the outcome. RESULTS: Early (within 1 month) scaffold thrombosis occurred in 69 patients and late (1 to 12 months) thrombosis occurred in 36 patients. Modelling found significant correlations of thrombosis to be final minimal lumen diameter <1.85 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 3.1; p = 0.004), off dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) status (OR: 3.1 to 3.5; p = 0.006 to 0.053), no post-dilatation with >1.1:1 balloon/scaffold ratio (OR: 2.3; p = 0.022), and reference vessel diameter <2.40 mm (OR: 2.1; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal vessel sizing, procedural technique, angiographic outcomes, and dual antiplatelet therapy discontinuation appear to be the principal determinants of Absorb scaffold thrombosis risk through 12 months after implantation.

Thirty-Day Outcomes After Unrestricted Implantation of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (from the Prospective RAI Registry).

The Absorb biovascular scaffold (BVS) is a bioresorbable, everolimus-eluting scaffold whose data on real-world patients with complex lesions are limited. Short-term follow-up from recent studies point to a higher rate of 30-day thrombosis than observed with drug-eluting stents. We aimed to understand the short-term safety and efficacy of BVS. Registro Absorb Italiano (RAI, ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02298413) is an Italian, prospective, multicenter registry not funded, whose aim is to investigate BVS performance through a 5-year follow-up of all consecutive patients who have undergone successful implantation of ≥1 BVS in different clinical/lesion subsets. Co-primary end points were target lesion revascularization and definite/probable thrombosis. Secondary end point was the occurrence of device-oriented cardiac events. The registry involved 23 centers, with patient enrollment from October 2012 to December 2015. We here report the 30-day outcomes of the whole population of the registry. We enrolled 1,505 consecutive patients, of which 82% were men and 22.4% diabetic. At presentation, 59.6% of the patients had an acute coronary syndrome, including 21% ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All lesions were pre-dilated and in 96.8% of the cases BVS was post-dilated. At 30 days, the co-primary study end point target lesion revascularization occurred in 0.6% of patients and definite/probable BVS thrombosis in 0.8%. There were 2 cases of cardiac and overall death (0.13%). Device-oriented cardiac events occurred in 1% of the patients. In conclusion, our data of consecutive patients suggest that current use of BVS in a wide spectrum of coronary narrowings and clinical settings is associated with good outcome at 30 days.

Clinical, angiographic, and procedural correlates of acute, subacute, and late absorb scaffold thrombosis

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify and verify independent correlates of device thrombosis from an analysis of multicenter trials and registries. BACKGROUND: Recent analyses suggest an increased risk of device thrombosis with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) implantation compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, and data from moderate size studies suggest a risk relationship to vessel size and technique. METHODS: From 8,771 consecutively treated patients, 105 patients (1.2%) were identified with scaffold thrombosis within 1 year of implantation. They were matched 2:1 with controls selected randomly from nonthrombosis patients. Data-restricted multiple logistic analysis was used to identify significant independent covariates of the outcome. RESULTS: Early (within 1 month) scaffold thrombosis occurred in 69 patients and late (1 to 12 months) thrombosis occurred in 36 patients. Modelling found significant correlations of thrombosis to be final minimal lumen diameter 1.1:1 balloon/scaffold ratio (OR: 2.3; p = 0.022), and reference vessel diameter <2.40 mm (OR: 2.1; p = 0.036).CONCLUSIONS:Suboptimal vessel sizing, procedural technique, angiographic outcomes, and dual antiplatelet therapy discontinuation appear to be the principal determinants of Absorb scaffold thrombosis risk through 12 months after implantation.

Clinical Comparison With Short-Term Follow-Up of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

Objective of this study was to assess the clinical performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in subjects with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We included all consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BVS implantation in centers participating to the Italian ABSORB Prospective Registry (BVS-RAI) and PCI with EES in the same centers during the same period. The 2 groups were compared. The primary end point was patient-oriented composite end point (POCE) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at the longest available follow-up. BVS or EES thrombosis at follow-up was also evaluated. Of the 563 patients with STEMI included, 122 received BVS and 441 EES. Procedural success was obtained in 549 (97.5%) cases without significant differences between the 2 groups (BVS 99.3% vs EES 97.0%, p = 0.2). At a median of 220-day (interquartile range 178 to 369) follow-up, no significant differences were observed in terms of POCE (BVS 4.9% vs EES 7.0%, p = 0.4); death (BVS 0.8%, EES 2.0%, p = 0.4), MI (BVS 4.1%, EES 2.0%, p = 0.2), TLR (BVS 4.1%, EES 4.5%, p = 0.8), device thrombosis (BVS 2.5%, EES 1.4%, p = 0.4). All TLR cases were successfully managed with re-PCI in both groups. A propensity matching of the study populations showed no significant differences regarding POCE at the longest available follow-up (odds ratio 0.53, 0.1 to 4.3). In conclusion, in this direct prospective comparison, BVS was associated with similar clinical results compared to EES in the STEMI setting. Larger and adequately powered randomized trials are needed to fully assess the potential clinical benefit of BVS versus the current standard of care in patients with STEMI.

Registro Absorb Italiano (BVS-RAI): an investigators-owned and -directed, open, prospective registry of consecutive patients treated with the Absorb™ BVS: study design.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb™ BVS is a bioresorbable, everolimus-eluting scaffold approved and marketed for coronary use. Published data on long-term results after treatment are limited to a small number of patients, most of them with elective PCI of simple lesions. The importance of scaffold resorption is variably appreciated among cardiologists, and indications for use from health technology assessment bodies or guidelines are missing. Instruments are needed to collect, share and assess the experience being accumulated with this new device in several centres. METHODS/DESIGN: The BVS-RAI Registry is a spontaneous initiative of a group of Italian interventional cardiologists in cooperation with Centro di Ricerche Farmacologiche e Biomediche "Mario Negri" Institute, and is not recipient of funding or benefits originating from the BVS manufacturer. It is a prospective registry with 5-year follow-up of all consecutive patients who have undergone successful implantation of 1 or more coronary BVS following the indications, techniques and protocols used in each of the participating institutions. Outcome measures are BVS target lesion failure within one year and device-oriented major adverse cardiac events within 5years. The registry started in October 2012 and will extend enrolment throughout 2015, with the aim to include about 1000 patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is CT02298413. CONCLUSIONS: The BVS-RAI Registry will contribute observational knowledge on the long-term safety and efficacy of the Absorb™ BVS as used in a number of Italian interventional centres in a broad spectrum of settings. Unrewarded and undirected consecutive patient enrolments are key-features of this observation, which is therefore likely to reflect common clinical practice in those centres.

Acute Kidney Injury in Elderly Patients With Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the Italian Elderly: ACS Study.

We examined the incidence and predictors of acute kidney injury (AKI) in elderly patients (≥75 years) enrolled in the prospective Italian Elderly acute coronary syndrome (ACS) study and explored the impact of AKI on clinical outcome. Acute kidney injury, defined according to the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria, occurred in 128 (21%) of 615 patients. Patients submitted to coronary angiographic procedures did not present higher rate of AKI. The only baseline variables independently associated with AKI development were creatinine clearance (odds ratio [OR]: 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97-0.99) and left ventricular ejection fraction (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). Adverse clinical events were significantly higher in patients who developed AKI. After multivariable adjustment, AKI (hazard ratio: 2.73; 95% CI: 1.87-4.0) was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality within 1 year.

Immediate and midterm outcomes following primary PCI with bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction: insights from the multicentre "Registro ABSORB Italiano" (RAI registry).

AIMS: In this multicentre prospective registry we sought to evaluate the immediate and midterm clinical outcomes following single or multiple overlapping bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation in the STEMI setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective cohort analysis was performed on all STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI with BVS implantation. Between December 2012 and February 2014, 1,232 STEMI patients underwent primary PCI at the participating centres. Of these, 74 (6.0%) received a BVS, 18 (24.3%) of them were multiple and overlapping. Procedural success was obtained in 72 (97.3%) cases without differences between the groups (overlapping BVS 100% vs. single BVS 96.4%, p=0.5). One patient experienced a reinfarction due to subacute BVS thrombosis which was successfully managed with balloon-only PCI while the other patient had a "slow-flow" phenomenon (final TIMI flow 2). At six-month follow-up, two non-fatal MI (2.7%), three target lesion revascularisations (4.1%), and one subacute BVS thrombosis were reported in three patients (one [5.6%] overlapping BVS and two [3.6%] in the single BVS group, p=0.5). All the events were successfully managed with re-PCI. CONCLUSIONS: BVS implantation in STEMI patients can be successfully performed with a high procedural success rate and encouraging midterm outcomes. Larger randomised trials and longer follow-up are needed to assess the potential clinical benefit of BVS versus new-generation DES in this setting.

Outcome of patients on oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary artery stenting: data from discharge to 12 months in the Warfarin and Coronary Stenting (WAR-STENT) Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain further, and more focused, information on the efficacy and safety of the antithrombotic regimens, including triple therapy (TT) of warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel; dual therapy (DT) of warfarin and single antiplatelet agent (aspirin or clopidogrel); and dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of aspirin and clopidogrel, prescribed to patients on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent (PCI-S). BACKGROUND: The true efficacy and safety of TT, DT, and DAPT in OAC patients undergoing PCI-S is largely undefined. METHODS: We analyzed the database of the prospective, multicenter WARfarin and coronary STENTing (WAR-STENT) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00722319), only including the post-discharge period. RESULTS: Of the 401 patients discharged alive from index hospitalization, 339 (85%), 20 (5%), and 42 (10%) were prescribed TT, DT, and DAPT, respectively. Throughout a mean follow-up of 368.3 ± 22.8 days, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and thromboembolism), total bleeding, major bleeding, and combination of MACE plus total bleeding were comparable across the three treatment groups. The absolute rate of major bleeding with TT was 4%. The antithrombotic treatment actually ongoing at major bleeding was TT in 44%, DT in 50%, and DAPT in 6% of cases. CONCLUSION: In the real-world population of OAC patients undergoing PCI-S in the WAR-STENT registry, the three antithrombotic regimens of TT, DT, and DAPT showed comparable efficacy and safety. Due to several limitations, our data cannot be considered conclusive in confuting the current recommendations to prescribe TT. Further properly designed and sized studies are warranted.