Search

Background: Coronary bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome the limitations of standard metallic stents, especially to address late events after percutaneous coronary interventions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BRS, compared with Everolimus-eluting stents (EES), using the data available from randomized trials, with a focus on long-term outcomes.Methods: Published randomized trials comparing BRS to EES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were searched for within PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases up to April 4th 2017. The summary measure used was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.Results: A total of 5 studies were eligible, including 5219 patients. At 2 years, BRS was associated with higher rates of target lesion failure (9.4% vs 7.2%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; p = 0.008) and device thrombosis (2.3% vs 0.7%; OR = 3.22; 95% CI 1.86 to 5.57; p < 0.0001) compared with EES. The incidence of both early (within 30 days after implantation, 1.1% vs 0.5%, OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.81; p = 0.05) and very-late device thrombosis (>1 year, 0.6% vs 0.1%, OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.82; p = 0.01) was higher with BRS compared with EES.Conclusions: BRS may be associated with worse two-years clinical outcomes compared with EES in patients with coronary artery disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adequate expansion is critical to achieve optimal Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) apposition to the vessel wall. However, compared to metallic stents, BVS present different mechanical properties. Hence, slow deployment and maintenance of balloon inflation for at least 30" is recommended for BVS implantation. However, since no evidences are available demonstrating the superiority of a longer balloon dilatation time, the implantation technique is highly variable among different centers.Methods: A total of 24 BVS-treated lesions were included in the present analysis. After BVS deployment at 12 atmosphere (ATM) the balloon was rapidly deflated and scaffold expansion was documented with an angiogram. The same balloon was then inflated again and kept at 12 ATM for 30". Finally, a further angiogram was obtained to evaluate BVS expansion. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed at each step.Results: A significant increase of minimal luminal diameter (MLD)-to-reference scaffold diameter (RSD) ratio (MLD to RSD Ration, MR-Ratio) from 0.70 ± 0.10 after initial stent deployment to 0.79 ± 0.10 after the 30"-long balloon dilation was observed (p < 0.001). Of note, this result was consistent across all sub-segments, as well as across almost all lesion subgroups. A substantial reduction in the prevalence of residual stenosis from 29 % to 17 % was registered after the 30"-long dilation.Conclusions: Our results strongly support the maintenance of balloon inflation for at least 30" during BVS deployment to achieve optimal scaffold expansion and minimize the occurrence of residual stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: BRS represent a new approach to treating coronary artery disease. Beneficial properties of BRS regarding the restoration of vasomotility after resorption make them attractive devices in CTO revascularization. However, experience in this setting is limited.Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Scholar, and Scopus for reports of at least 9 patients with CTO undergoing BRS implantation. Patients' and procedural characteristics were summarized. The primary outcome of interest was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017069322).Results: Thirteen reports for a total of 843 lesions with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR 6-12) were included in the analysis. At short-term, the summary estimate rate of TLR was 2.6% (95% CI: 1 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887) while at mid to long-term it was 3.8% (95% CI: 2 to 6%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.803). At long-term follow-up (≥12 months), the summary estimate rate of cardiac death was 1.1% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.887). The summary estimate rates of scaffold thrombosis and clinical restenosis were respectively 0.9% (95% CI: 0 to 2%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.919) and 1.8% (95% CI: 0 to 4%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.448). Finally, the summary estimate rate of target vessel revascularization was 6.6% (95% CI: 0 to 11%, I2 = 0%, P = 0.04).Conclusions: Implantation of BRS in a population with CTO is feasible, although further longer-term outcome studies are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has traditionally represented the standard of care for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation (PCI) has more recently emerged as a valuable alternative. The long-time awaited results of the largest randomized trials on the long-term impact of PCI versus CABG in LMCA disease, the newly published NOBLE and EXCEL studies, revealed contrasting results. Thus, aim of the present meta-analysis was to review the most robust evidence from randomized comparisons of CABG versus PCI for revascularization of LMCA.Methods: Randomized studies comparing long-term clinical outcomes of CABG or Stent-PCI for the treatment of LMCA disease were searched for in PubMed, the Chochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 5 randomized studies were selected, including 4499 patients.Results: No significant difference between CABG and PCI was found in the primary analysis on the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction (OR = 1·06 95% CI 0·80-1·40; p = 0·70). Similarly, no differences were observed between CABG and PCI for all-cause death (OR = 1·03 95% CI 0·81-1·32; p = 0·81). Although not statistically significant, a lower rate of stroke was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 0·86; p = 0·67), while a lower rate of myocardial infarction was found in the CABG arm (OR = 1·43; p = 0·17). On the contrary, a significantly higher rate of repeat revascularization was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 1·76 95% CI 1·45-2·13; p < 0·001).Conclusions: The present meta-analysis, the most comprehensive and updated to date, including 5 randomized studies and 4499 patients, demonstrates no difference between Stent-PCI and CABG for the treatment of LMCA disease in the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction. Hence, a large part of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease can be managed equally well by means of both these revascularization strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]