Infective endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparison of balloon- versus self-expandable valves

BACKGROUND: No data exist about the characteristics of infective endocarditis (IE) post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) according to transcatheter valve type. We aimed to determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with IE post-TAVR treated with balloon-expandable valve (BEV) versus self-expanding valve (SEV) systems. METHODS: Data from the multicenter Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry was used to compare IE patients with BEV versus SEV. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients with IE post-TAVR were included (SEV, 47%; BEV, 53%). The timing between TAVR and IE was similar between groups (SEV, 5.5 [1.2-15] months versus BEV, 5.3 [1.7-11.4] months; P=0.89). Enterococcal IE was more frequent in the SEV group (36.5% versus 15.4%; P<0.01), and vegetation location differed according to valve type (stent frame, SEV, 18.6%; BEV, 6.9%; P=0.01; valve leaflet, SEV, 23.9%; BEV, 38.5%; P=0.01). BEV recipients had a higher rate of stroke/systemic embolism (20.0% versus 8.7%, adjusted OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.04-5.82, P=0.04). Surgical explant of the transcatheter valve (SEV, 8.7%; BEV, 13.8%; P=0.21), and in-hospital death at the time of IE episode (SEV, 35.6%; BEV, 37.7%; P=0.74) were similar between groups. After a mean follow-up of 13±12 months, 59.1% and 54.6% of the SEV and BEV recipients, respectively, had died (P=0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of IE post-TAVR, including microorganism type, vegetation location, and embolic complications but not early or late mortality, differed according to valve type. These results may help to guide the diagnosis and management of IE and inform future research studies in the field. (AU)

Three-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: Final results of the ABSORB EXTEND trial

BACKGROUND: There is still limited data on the very long term clinical outcomes after ABSORB BRS in daily practice. We sought to evaluate the 3 year-performance of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of low/moderate complexity patients enrolled in the ABSORB EXTEND trial. METHODS: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study in which 812 patients were enrolled at 56 sites. This study allowed the treatment of lesions ≤28 mm in length and reference vessel diameter of 2.0-3.8 mm (as assessed by on-line QCA). To determine the independent predictors of MACE, a multivariable logistic regression model was built using a stepwise (forward/backward) procedure. RESULTS: Average population age was 61 years and 26.5% had diabetes. Most patients had single target lesion (92.4%). Adequate scaffold deployment (PSP) was achieved in 14.2% of the cases. At three years, the composite endpoints of MACE and ischemia-driven target vessel failure were 9.2% and 10.6%, respectively. The cumulative rate of ARC definite/probable thrombosis was 2.2%, with 1.2% of the cases occurring after the 1st year. Independent predictors of MACE were hypertension and the need for "bail out" stent. CONCLUSION: At three-year follow-up, the use of ABSORB in low/moderate complex PCI was associated with low and acceptable rates of major adverse clinical events, despite the infrequent use of the recommended contemporary scaffold deployment technique. However, scaffold thrombosis rate was higher than reported with current generation of metallic DES. (AU)

Predictors of long-term adverse events after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: a 1,933-patient pooled analysis from international registries.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the predictors of long-term adverse clinical events after implantation of the everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled patient-level databases derived from the large-scale ABSORB EXTEND study and five high-volume international centres. Between November 2011 and November 2015, 1,933 patients underwent PCI with a total of 2,372 Absorb BVS implanted. The median age was 61.0 (IQR 53.0 to 68.6) years, 24% had diabetes, and 68.2% presented with stable coronary artery disease. At a median follow-up of 616 days, MACE occurred in 93 (4.9%) patients, all-cause death in 36 (1.9%) patients, myocardial infarction in 47 (2.5%) patients, and target vessel revascularisation in 72 (3.8%) patients. Definite or probable scaffold thrombosis occurred in 26 (1.3%) patients. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, acute coronary syndromes (hazard ratio [HR] 2.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47 to 5.29; p=0.002), dyslipidaemia (HR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.79; p=0.007), scaffold/reference diameter ratio >1.25 (HR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.88; p=0.001), and residual stenosis >15% (HR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.07; p<0.001) were independent predictors of MACE, whereas the use of intravascular imaging was independently associated with a reduction in MACE (HR 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.28; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal Absorb BVS implantation and the use of intravascular imaging guidance are associated with lower rates of adverse events at long-term follow-up.

Three-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: Final results of the ABSORB EXTEND trial.

BACKGROUND: There is still limited data on the very long term clinical outcomes after ABSORB BRS in daily practice. We sought to evaluate the 3 year-performance of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of low/moderate complexity patients enrolled in the ABSORB EXTEND trial. METHODS: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study in which 812 patients were enrolled at 56 sites. This study allowed the treatment of lesions ≤28 mm in length and reference vessel diameter of 2.0-3.8 mm (as assessed by on-line QCA). To determine the independent predictors of MACE, a multivariable logistic regression model was built using a stepwise (forward/backward) procedure. RESULTS: Average population age was 61 years and 26.5% had diabetes. Most patients had single target lesion (92.4%). Adequate scaffold deployment (PSP) was achieved in 14.2% of the cases. At three years, the composite endpoints of MACE and ischemia-driven target vessel failure were 9.2% and 10.6%, respectively. The cumulative rate of ARC definite/probable thrombosis was 2.2%, with 1.2% of the cases occurring after the 1st year. Independent predictors of MACE were hypertension and the need for "bail out" stent. CONCLUSION: At three-year follow-up, the use of ABSORB in low/moderate complex PCI was associated with low and acceptable rates of major adverse clinical events, despite the infrequent use of the recommended contemporary scaffold deployment technique. However, scaffold thrombosis rate was higher than reported with current generation of metallic DES. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier NCT01023789).

Two-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with overlapping absorb scaffolds: An analysis of the ABSORB EXTEND single-arm study

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data showed that overlapping (OVP) scaffolds might result in delayed healing and strut coverage compared to nonOVP scaffold segments. Furthermore, OVP in patients could result in increased periprocedure myocardial infarction (MI) rate secondary to side branch occlusion; however, little is known whether this may have an impact on long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study in which 812 patients were enrolled at 56 sites. In this study, we compared the immediate and 2-year clinical outcomes of patients with OVP scaffolds (n = 115) to those of patients with nonOVP scaffolds (n = 697). The primary objective was the comparison of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (cardiac death, MI and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]) and scaffold thrombosis (ST) rates up to 2 years...

Two-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with overlapping absorb scaffolds: An analysis of the ABSORB EXTEND single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data showed that overlapping (OVP) scaffolds might result in delayed healing and strut coverage compared to nonOVP scaffold segments. Furthermore, OVP in patients could result in increased periprocedure myocardial infarction (MI) rate secondary to side branch occlusion; however, little is known whether this may have an impact on long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study in which 812 patients were enrolled at 56 sites. In this study, we compared the immediate and 2-year clinical outcomes of patients with OVP scaffolds (n = 115) to those of patients with nonOVP scaffolds (n = 697). The primary objective was the comparison of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (cardiac death, MI and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]) and scaffold thrombosis (ST) rates up to 2 years. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable between cohorts except for longer lesions in the OVP patients as expected (16.7 ± 7.3 vs. 11.6 ± 4.4 mm, P < 0.0001), higher lesion complexity (B2) and numerically smaller vessel size. In-hospital, there was a marked increase in MACE in the OVP cohort (7.0 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.002), exclusively driven by a higher rate of periprocedure MI (7.0 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.002). Long-term MACE did not significantly differ between groups (10.4% in the OVP cohort vs. 6.6% in the no-OVP group, P = 0.1) with comparable rates of cardiac death (0.9 vs. 1.2%, P = 1.0) and ischemia-driven TLR (1.7 vs. 2.5%, P = 1.0). Cumulative incidence of MI was higher in the OVP cohort (7.8 vs. 3.0%, P = 0.02). Of note, the rate of MI between hospital discharge and 2-year follow-up was lower in the OVP cohort (0.8 vs. 2.1%, P = 0.04). Cumulative incidence of definite/probable ST was relatively low and comparable between groups (1.8 vs. 1.5%, P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this low-to-moderate complex population treated with the ABSORB scaffold the OVP group showed a higher incidence of periprocedure MI with no immediate or long-term increase in cardiac death, TLR or ST.

Risk and timing of clinical events according to diabetic status of patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stent: 2-year results from a propensity score matched comparison of ABSORB EXTEND and SPIRIT trials.

OBJECTIVES: to compare the occurrence of clinical events in diabetics treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) versus everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES; XIENCE V; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) BACKGROUND: There are limited data dedicated to clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) at 2-year horizon. METHODS: The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups. CONCLUSION: In this largest ever patient-level pooled comparison on the treatment of diabetic patients with BRS out to two years, individuals with diabetes treated with the Absorb BVS had a similar rate of MACE as compared with diabetics treated with the Xience EES. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Risk and timing of clinical events according to diabetic status of patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stent: 2-year results from a propensity score matched comparison of ABSORB EXTEND and SPIRIT trials

OBJECTIVES: to compare the occurrence of clinical events in diabetics treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) versus everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES; XIENCE V; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) BACKGROUND: There are limited data dedicated to clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) at 2-year horizon. METHODS:The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups...

One-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a propensity score comparison of patients enrolled in the ABSORB EXTEND and SPIRIT trials.

AIMS: We sought to compare the outcomes of low/moderate complexity patients treated with the Absorb BVS from the ABSORB EXTEND trial with patients treated with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES), using propensity score (PS) matching of pooled data from the SPIRIT trials (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III, SPIRIT IV) and the XIENCE V USA trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: ABSORB EXTEND was a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study in which 812 patients were enrolled at 56 sites. This study allowed the treatment of lesions ≤28 mm in length and with a reference vessel diameter of 2.0-3.8 mm (as assessed by online QCA). The propensity score was obtained by fitting a logistic regression model with the cohort indicator as the binary outcome and other variables as the predictor variables. At one-year clinical follow-up, there was no statistical difference between groups with regard to MACE (5.0% vs. 4.8%, p=0.83), target lesion failure (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.74), ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation (2.3% vs. 3.0%, p=0.38) and device thrombosis (1.0% vs. 0.3%, p=0.11). Myocardial infarction was higher with Absorb (3.3% vs. 1.5%, p=0.02), at the expense of periprocedural CK-MB elevation. Independent predictors of MACE among patients receiving Absorb BVS were treatment of multivessel disease, insulin-dependent diabetes and performance of post-dilation. CONCLUSIONS: At one-year follow-up, propensity score-matched analysis demonstrated that the clinical safety and effectiveness of Absorb are comparable to those of XIENCE EES among non-complex patients treated with PCI.

Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and subsequent infective endocarditis and in-hospital death

IMPORTANCE: Limited data exist on clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVE: To determine the associated factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after TAVR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry included patients with definite infective endocarditis after TAVR from 47 centers from Europe, North America, and South America between June 2005 and October 2015. EXPOSURE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endocarditis and infective endocarditis for in-hospital mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Infective endocarditis and in-hospital mortality after infective endocarditis. RESULTS: A total of 250 cases of infective endocarditis occurred in 20 006 patients after TAVR (incidence, 1.1% per person-year; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%; median age, 80 years; 64% men). Median time from TAVR to infective endocarditis was 5.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-13.4 months). The characteristics associated with higher risk of progressing to infective endocarditis after TAVR was younger age (78.9 years vs 81.8 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), male sex (62.0% vs 49.7%; HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.52), diabetes mellitus (41.7% vs 30.0%; HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29), and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (22.4% vs 14.7%; HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.28-3.28). Health care-associated infective endocarditis was present in 52.8% (95% CI, 46.6%-59.0%) of patients...

One-year clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation in diabetics enrolled in the worldwide e-SELECT registry

BACKGROUND:Diabetes mellitus has worse outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention.AIM:We assessed stent thrombosis (ST), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and major bleeding rates at 1 year after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients with diabetes mellitus in a large multicenter registry.METHODS:From May 2006 to April 2008, 15,147 unselected consecutive patients were enrolled at 320 centers in 56 countries in a prospective, observational registry after implantation of ≥ 1 SES. Source data were verified in 20% randomly chosen patients at > 100 sites. Adverse events were adjudicated by an independent Clinical Event Committee.RESULTS:Complete follow-up at 1 year was obtained in 13,693 (92%) patients, 4,577 (30%) of whom were diabetics. Within diabetics, 1,238 (9%) were insulin-treated diabetics (ITD). Diabetics were older (64 vs. 62 years, P < 0.001), with higher incidence of major coronary risk factors, co-morbidities, and triple-vessel coronary artery disease. Coronary lesions had smaller reference vessel diameter (2.88 ± 0.46 vs. 2.93 ± 0.45 mm, P < 0.001) and were more often heavily calcified (26.1% vs. 22.6%, P < 0.001). At 1 year, diabetics had higher MACE rate (6.8% vs. 3.9%, P < 0.001) driven by ITD (10.6% vs. 5.5%, P < 0.001). Finally, diabetics had significant increase in ST (1.7% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.001), principally owing to ITD (3.4% vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001). There was an overall low risk of major bleeding during follow-up, without significant difference among subgroups.CONCLUSIONS:In the e-SELECT registry, diabetics represented 30% of patients undergoing SES implantation and had significantly more co-morbidities and complex coronary lesions. Although 1-year follow-up documented good overall outcome in diabetics, higher ST and MACE rates were observed, mainly driven by ITD.

One-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a propensity score comparison of patients enrolled in the ABSORB EXTEND and SPIRIT trials

We sought to compare the outcomes of low/moderate complexity patients treated with the Absorb BVS from the ABSORB EXTEND trial with patients treated with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES), using propensity score (PS) matching of pooled data from the SPIRIT trials (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III, SPIRIT IV) and the XIENCE V USA trial...

Impact of post-dilation on the acute and one-year clinical outcomes of a large cohort of patients treated solely with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold.

AIMS: We sought to determine the impact of post-dilation (PD) on clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated only with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (BVS). METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated all consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre, single-arm ABSORB EXTEND study up to June 2013. The study allowed treatment of up to two coronaries (diameter 2.0 to 3.8 mm) and the use of overlapping (lesion length ≤28 mm). Patients with severe lesion calcification/tortuosity were excluded. Aggressive lesion predilation (balloon to artery ratio of 0.9-1.0) was mandatory, and PD was left to the operator's discretion. Patients were grouped according to whether PD was performed or not, and the one-year incidences of MACE and scaffold thrombosis were compared. A total of 768 patients were enrolled in the study; PD was performed in 526 (68.4%). There were no significant differences between the PD group and non-PD group in the majority of baseline characteristics, including the presence of moderate calcification and of B2/C lesions. Lesion length was similar (12.3±5.1 mm vs. 12.1±5.3 mm, p=0.6), as was RVD (2.6 mm for both groups, p=0.2). Residual in-scaffold stenosis (15.5±6.4% with PD, 15.0±6% without PD, p=0.3) and the need for bail-out scaffold/stent (4.2% with PD, 4.6% without PD, p=0.8) were comparable. Acute gain was higher in the non-PD group (1.14±0.3 mm vs. 1.21±0.4 mm, p=0.02). Clinical device success was 98.9% in both groups. At one year, there was no difference in MACE (5.4% in the PD group vs. 2.5% in the non-PD group, p=0.1). All individual components of TLR, death, and MI were similar as well as definite/probable scaffold thrombosis between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results reflect very similar final angiographic and clinical results achieved with or without post-dilation in the treatment of low to moderately complex coronary lesions. Therefore, post-dilation should be performed whenever needed to optimise acute results.

The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelve-month clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled.

AIMS: The safety and performance of the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb BVS) system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) has been previously established in 131 patients from cohort A and cohort B of the first-in-man ABSORB trial. Following this trial, ABSORB EXTEND was initiated as a global continued access study (outside of the USA) to expand experience with the Absorb BVS system to different geographies with broader inclusion criteria to include the treatment of longer lesions and multiple vessels. We report in this manuscript the twelve-month clinical outcomes of the first 512 patients in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study which will enrol up to 800 patients at up to 100 sites. Included are patients with lesions ≤28 mm in length and reference vessel diameter of 2.0-3.8 mm (as assessed by on-line QCA or IVUS). Treatment of a maximum of two de novo native coronary artery lesions is permitted when each lesion is located in a different epicardial vessel. An independent clinical events committee adjudicates all endpoint-related events. At one year, for the first 512 patients enrolled in the study, the composite endpoints of ischaemia-driven MACE and ischaemia-driven target vessel failure were 4.3% and 4.9%, respectively. The cumulative rate of ARC defined definite and probable scaffold thrombosis for this population was 0.8% at one year. CONCLUSIONS: This interim analysis of the ABSORB EXTEND study shows low rates of MACE and scaffold thrombosis. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier NCT01023789).

Relation between bioresorbable scaffold sizing using QCA-Dmax and clinical outcomes at 1 year in 1,232 patients from 3 study cohorts (ABSORB Cohort B, ABSORB EXTEND, and ABSORB II)

BACKGROUND:Assessment of pre-procedural Dmax of proximal and distal sites has been used for Absorb scaffold size selection in the ABSORB studies.METHODS:A total of 1,248 patients received Absorb scaffolds in the ABSORB Cohort B (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B) study (N = 101), ABSORB EXTEND (ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation) study (N = 812), and ABSORB II (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial) trial (N = 335). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction [MI], and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) was analyzed according to the Dmax subclassification of scaffold oversize group versus scaffold nonoversize group...

The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelve-month clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled

Aims: The safety and performance of the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb BVS) system(Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) has been previously established in 131 patients from cohort A andcohort B of the first-in-man ABSORB trial. Following this trial, ABSORB EXTEND was initiated as a globalcontinued access study (outside of the USA) to expand experience with the Absorb BVS system to differentgeographies with broader inclusion criteria to include the treatment of longer lesions and multiple vessels.We report in this manuscript the twelve-month clinical outcomes of the first 512 patients in this population.Methods and results: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study whichwill enrol up to 800 patients at up to 100 sites. Included are patients with lesions ≤28 mm in length and referencevessel diameter of 2.0-3.8 mm (as assessed by on-line QCA or IVUS). Treatment of a maximum oftwo de novo native coronary artery lesions is permitted when each lesion is located in a different epicardialvessel. An independent clinical events committee adjudicates all endpoint-related events. At one year, for thefirst 512 patients enrolled in the study, the composite endpoints of ischaemia-driven MACE and ischaemiadriventarget vessel failure were 4.3% and 4.9%, respectively. The cumulative rate of ARC defined definiteand probable scaffold thrombosis for this population was 0.8% at one year.Conclusions: This interim analysis of the ABSORB EXTEND study shows low rates of MACE and scaffoldthrombosis. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier NCT01023789).

Impact of post-dilation on the acute and one-year clinicaloutcomes of a large cohort of patients treated solely with theAbsorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold

Aims: We sought to determine the impact of post-dilation (PD) on clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated only with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (BVS).Methods and results: We evaluated all consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre, single-arm ABSORB EXTEND study up to June 2013. The study allowed treatment of up to two coronaries (diameter 2.0 to 3.8 mm) and the use of overlapping (lesion length ²28 mm). Patients with severe lesion calcification/tortuosity were excluded. Aggressive lesion predilation (balloon to artery ratio of 0.9-1.0) was mandatory, and PD was left to the operator’s discretion. Patients were grouped according to whether PD was performed or not, and the one-year incidences of MACE and scaffold thrombosis were compared. A total of 768 patients were enrolled in the study; PD was performed in 526 (68.4%). There were no significant differences between the PD group and non-PD group in the majority of baseline characteristics, including the presence of mod-erate calcification and of B2/C lesions. Lesion length was similar (12.3±5.1 mm vs. 12.1±5.3 mm, p=0.6), as was RVD (2.6 mm for both groups, p=0.2). Residual in-scaffold stenosis (15.5±6.4% with PD, 15.0±6% without PD, p=0.3) and the need for bail-out scaffold/stent (4.2% with PD, 4.6% without PD, p=0.8) were comparable. Acute gain was higher in the non-PD group (1.14±0.3 mm vs. 1.21±0.4 mm, p=0.02). Clinical device success was 98.9% in both groups. At one year, there was no difference in MACE (5.4% in the PD group vs. 2.5% in the non-PD group, p=0.1). All individual components of TLR, death, and MI were similar as well as definite/probable scaffold thrombosis between the two groups...

Lessons learned from acute and late scaffold failures in the ABSORB EXTEND trial

Aims: Bioresorbable scaffolds are increasingly used in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneouscoronary interventions. ABSORB EXTEND is an ongoing study that will recruit 800 patients. Thisreport evaluates acute and late scaffold failure in the first 450 patients enrolled in ABSORB EXTEND whohave completed 12 months follow-up.Methods and results: Clinical event data from the first 450 patients enrolled in ABSORB EXTEND havedemonstrated low rates of ischaemia-driven MACE (4.2%) and target vessel failure (4.7%) at 12 months.There have been seven cases of device failure in this study: three cases of scaffold dislodgement (0.67%) andfour cases of subacute or late scaffold thrombosis (0.89%). All scaffold dislodgements occurred in the leftcircumflex (LCX), and in two cases dislodgement was observed after reinsertion of the same device. Twocases of subacute scaffold thrombosis and two late scaffold thromboses were observed. Two out of four casesof scaffold thrombosis seemed to be related to either premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy(DAPT) or resistance to clopidogrel.Conclusions: This is the first report specifically describing the incidence and the potential mechanisms ofscaffold dislodgement and scaffold thrombosis as seen in the ABSORB EXTEND trial.

The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelvemonth clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled

Aims: The safety and performance of the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb BVS) system(Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) has been previously established in 131 patients from cohort A andcohort B of the first-in-man ABSORB trial. Following this trial, ABSORB EXTEND was initiated as a globalcontinued access study (outside of the USA) to expand experience with the Absorb BVS system to differentgeographies with broader inclusion criteria to include the treatment of longer lesions and multiple vessels. Wereport in this manuscript the twelve-month clinical outcomes of the first 512 patients in this population.Methods and results: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study whichwill enrol up to 800 patients at up to 100 sites. Included are patients with lesions ≤28 mm in length and referencevessel diameter of 2.0-3.8 mm (as assessed by on-line QCA or IVUS). Treatment of a maximum of twode novo native coronary artery lesions is permitted when each lesion is located in a different epicardial vessel.An independent clinical events committee adjudicates all endpoint-related events. At one year, for the first512 patients enrolled in the study, the composite endpoints of ischaemia-driven MACE and ischaemia-driventarget vessel failure were 4.3% and 4.9%, respectively. The cumulative rate of ARC defined definite andprobable scaffold thrombosis for this population was 0.8% at one year.Conclusions: This interim analysis of the ABSORB EXTEND study shows low rates of MACE and scaffoldthrombosis. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier NCT01023789).