Search

Optical coherence tomography (OCT), an established intravascular imaging technique, enables rapid acquisition of high-resolution images during invasive coronary procedures to assist physician decision-making. OCT has utility in identifying plaque/lesion morphology (e.g., thrombus, degree of calcification, and presence of lipid) and vessel geometry (lesion length and vessel diameter) and in guiding stent optimisation through identification of malapposition and underexpansion. The use of OCT guidance during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has demonstrated improved procedural and clinical outcomes in longitudinal registries, although randomised controlled trial data remain pending. Despite growing data and guideline endorsement to support OCT guidance during PCI, its use in different countries is not well established. This article is based on an advisory panel meeting that included experts from Southeast Asia (SEA) and is aimed at understanding the current clinical utility of intracoronary imaging and OCT, assessing the barriers and enablers of imaging and OCT adoption, and mapping a path for the future of intravascular imaging in SEA. This is the first Southeast Asian consensus that provides insights into the use of OCT from a clinician’s point of view.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes following selective implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients at high risk of restenosis versus bare metal stents (BMS) in low-risk patients, according to predefined criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between May 2002 and April 2004 were enrolled in this retrospective, single-centre study. All patients received a BMS while undergoing PCI, unless they fulfilled at least two entry criteria that warranted DES usage. The study endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), comprising death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis (ST), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR), at four years between the DES and BMS groups. A total of 1,250 patients were enrolled in the study, among whom 1,095 (88%) received BMS and the rest received DES. At four years, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of MACE: death (4.5% in DES vs. 5.8% in BMS, p=0.531), myocardial infarction (2.6% in DES vs. 3.1% in BMS, p=0.722), TVR (9.7% in DES vs. 7.9% in BMS, p=0.461), and ST (1.9% in DES vs. 0.8% in BMS, p=0.183). The event-free survival rate at four years was similar in the two groups (87.1% in DES vs. 86.1% in BMS; p=0.741). CONCLUSIONS: In elective PCI, a strategy of selective use of DES in patients at high risk of restenosis based on predefined criteria confers the same favourable long-term clinical outcomes as BMS in low-risk patients.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.BackgroundThe Absorb BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) is a polymeric scaffold approved for treatment of stable coronary lesions. Limited and not randomized data are available on its use in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.MethodsThis study included 290 consecutive STEMI patients treated by BVS, compared with either 290 STEMI patients treated with EES or 290 STEMI patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) from the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial, by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, at 1-year follow-up. Device thrombosis, according to the Academic Research Consortium criteria, was also evaluated.ResultsThe cumulative incidence of DOCE did not differ between the BVS and EES or BMS groups either at 30 days (3.1% vs. 2.4%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48 to 3.52], p = 0.593; vs. 2.8%, HR: 1.15 [95% CI: 0.44 to 2.30], p = 0.776, respectively) or at 1 year (4.1% vs. 4.1%, HR: 0.99 [95% CI: 0.23 to 4.32], p = 0.994; vs. 5.9%, HR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.13 to 1.88], p = 0.306, respectively). Definite/probable BVS thrombosis rate was numerically higher either at 30 days (2.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.059; vs. 1.0%, p = 0.324, respectively) or at 1 year (2.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.948; vs. 1.7%, p = 0.825, respectively), as compared with EES or BMS.ConclusionsAt 1-year follow-up, STEMI patients treated with BVS showed similar rates of DOCE compared with STEMI patients treated with EES or BMS, although rate of scaffolds thrombosis, mostly clustered in the early phase, was not negligible. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.