Search

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.

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.