Search

BACKGROUND: Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce. AIMS: This report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group. METHODS: AIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT. RESULTS: Up to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p

Background: In this prespecified AIDA-trial sub-study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3-year follow-up. Methods and results: All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p =.840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p =.391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p =.028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p

It has been hypothesized that dedicated optimized Absorb BVS implantation techniques might mitigate the risk of adverse events such as target vessel failure and device thrombosis. In this explorative AIDA trial QCA substudy, we sought to investigate the influence of implantation techniques on lesion-oriented outcomes in both the Absorb BVS and Xience EES arm at complete 3-year follow-up. The current analysis includes 2152 study lesions treated with at least one study device, of which the baseline angiogram was suited for offline QCA analysis, including Dmax analysis. The lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCE) of this analysis was a composite of definite device thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target-vessel myocardial infarction. In Absorb BVS, the Lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE) occurred numerically less in correctly QCA sized vessels when compared to incorrectly sized vessels 8.5% (58/696) versus 11.1% (39/358), p = 0.151. In Xience EES, LOCE had occurred more frequently in incorrectly sized devices according to device diameter/RVD matching; 2.2% (4/187) in correctly sized devices versus 7.1% (63/911) in incorrectly sized devices (p = 0.014). In this AIDA trial QCA substudy, rates of LOCE were significantly lower in Xience EES treated lesions in which devices were correctly sized according to the definitions of device diameter/RVD matching.

Background: Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden. This subgroup-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation. Methods: The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality. Results: Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31–1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98–1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21–3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26–5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11–14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08). Conclusions: In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males.

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS. Methods and results: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17). Conclusion: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.

Due to expansion limits of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold a meticulous implantation with correct sizing is required. We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the sizing of the device related to the maximal lumen diameter measured by quantitative coronary angiography in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions in the AIDA trial. Sizing of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) was graded according to the definitions of device non-oversize and device oversize on pre-procedural angiography. Lesion-oriented outcomes (LOCE) (device thrombosis, TLR and TVMI) that occurred during 2 years follow-up were related to device non-oversized or oversized status. In the Absorb BVS group, LOCE occurred in 48 (7.4%) lesions in the oversized group and in 32 (8.2%) lesions in the non-oversized group (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.58–1.42; p = 0.681), whereas TLR occurred in 34 (5.3%) lesions and in 23 lesions (5.9%), respectively (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.52–1.51; p = 0.666). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 11 (1.7%) device oversized treated lesions against 16 (4.1%) device non-oversized treated lesions (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19–0.89; p = 0.020). There were no differences in event rates between oversized and non-oversized groups in lesions treated with Xience EES. There was no significant difference in LOCE between oversized and non-oversized treated Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions. Non-oversized Absorb BVS implantation was associated with a higher risk of scaffold thrombosis at complete 2 years follow-up. The majority of very late scaffold thrombosis occurred in properly sized devices. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10554-019-01576-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims: The aim of this report of the AIDA trial is to provide full two-year outcomes for the primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) and an update on device thrombosis. Methods and results: AIDA was a single-blind, multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1) clinical trial. At complete two-year follow-up, the primary endpoint of TVF had occurred in 100 patients in the Absorb BVS arm versus 90 patients in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.94-1.49; psuperiority=0.436). Estimated two-year Kaplan-Meier event rates of TVF were 11.0% and 9.9%, respectively (95% CI: -0.9%-3.0%; pnon-inferiority=0.003). Definite or probable device thrombosis at two years occurred in 30 patients in the Absorb BVS arm and in eight patients in the XIENCE EES arm. Kaplan- Meier estimates of device thrombosis were 3.3% in the Absorb BVS arm and 0.9% in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 5.22, 95% CI: 2.00-13.59; p

Aims We evaluated the impact of the complexity of coronary disease assessed by SYNTAX score (SXscore) on the clinical outcomes in the AIDA trial. Methods and results In the AIDA trial, we compared Absorb versus Xience in routine clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were stratified by SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXscore≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). SXscore was available in 1661 of the 1845 (90%) patients. Event rate of TVF was numerically lower in Absorb compared to Xience (3.7% versus 5.6%; p=0.257) in the Sxlow tertile, numerically higher in Absorb in in the Sxmid tertile (11.4% versus 9.3%, p=0.421) and similar in the Sxhigh tertile (15.5% versus. 15.6%; p=0.960) . The rates of definite/probable device thrombosis in Absorb versus Xience were significantly higher in the Sxmid tertile (3.3% versus 0.8%, p=0.043) and in the SXhigh tertile (3.7% versus 0.8%, p=0.006) Patients treated with Absorb and a SXscore>8 had numerically, but non significantly, higher rates of myocardial revascularization and revascularization rates when compared to Xience. Conclusions We found no significantly different rates of TVF between Absorb and Xience patients. Absorb treated patients in the Sxmid and SXhigh tertile, however, had an increased risk of device thrombosis when compared to Xience treated patients. The rates of device thrombosis in the SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, but are more acceptable than in SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles.

Objectives: To identify potential underlying mechanisms of early and (very) late scaffold thrombosis (ScT) by optical coherence tomography (OCT), in a frame-by-frame analysis. Background: The absorb scaffold is associated with an increased risk of ScT compared with metallic stents. Several potential causes of bioresorbable ScT have been identified, however the precise etiology still remains unclear. Methods: Between February 2013 and February 2016, 13 patients presenting with definite ScT underwent OCT imaging. After guidewire passage or balloon inflations, OCT images were acquired. Pullbacks were assessed offline at each 1 mm longitudinal interval within the treated segment and the 5 mm segments adjacent to both edges. Primary cause of ScT was assessed by reviewing medical records, baseline angiographic films, and OCT pullback and angiographic films at time of ScT. Results: 13 patients, with 14 thrombotic lesions presented either with early ScT (i.e., ≤30 days) or very (late) (i.e., >30 days). Analysis demonstrated a significantly smaller in-scaffold maximal lumen diameter in the early cases (2.75 ± 0.85 mm vs. 3.00 ± 0.46 mm; P = 0.033) and a nonsignificant smaller minimal scaffold diameter (2.44 ± 0.62 mm vs. 2.58 ± 0.37 mm P = 0.097). Per-strut analysis demonstrated significantly more malapposed scaffold struts in (very) late cases (6% versus 0.6%, P

A novel bare metal stent with an SiOIn contrast with the preclinical study, the Axetis stent did not efficiently suppress neointimal hyperplasia in humans in this trial.

Treatment of coronary artery disease has made strides over the last decades. Development of drug eluting stents (DES), coated with a polymer layer and an anti-proliferative drug to reduce neointimal hyperplasia, has reduced the incidence of in-stent-restenosis relative to treatment with bare metal stents. Patients treated with first generation DES more likely suffer from (very) late events which can be cause by the permanent presence of a polymer. Therefore second generation DES with more biocompatible coatings, and third generation DES, with very thin struts coated with biodegradable polymers, were developed. Areas covered: The MiStent SES is one of these third generation DES and is designed to limit the duration of polymer exposure, optimize coronary vessel healing and more precisely and consistently control drug elution to improve safety and clinical outcomes. This review provides a detailed description of the technique behind the MiStent SES, and describes the pre-clinical and clinical trials conducted with this device to date. Expert commentary: Recent clinical trials have shown non-inferiority of very thin strut biodegradable polymer coated DES compared to durable polymer coated DES, whilst maintaining an excellent safety profile. Longer follow-up, to see the real potential benefits of these devices, is mandatory however.

Bioresorbable scaffolds represent a novel approach in the treatment of coronary artery disease which allows for vessel wall support without leaving a permanent foreign body in the coronary artery. This technology has the potential to reduce some of the shortcomings of current standard treatment with metallic drug-eluting stents, such as late in-stent restenosis, impaired vasomotion of the stented segment and hindrance of surgical revascularizations. Currently, several bioresorbable scaffolds are available and undergoing clinical or preclinical evaluation. This review will present the current status of development of bioresorbable scaffolds, describe the degradation/resorption process of each device and the clinical data available to date.

The bare-metal Tryton Side Branch (SB) Stent™ (Tryton Medical, Durham, NC, USA) is used with a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the main branch (MB) to treat bifurcation lesions. It is argued that a drug-eluting Tryton-version is needed to improve clinical outcomes, although previous registries have shown good clinical results. More insights in neo-intimal hyperplasia (NIH) growth patterns of the Tryton treatment strategy are needed to decide if and where to drug-coat the stent. Ten patients returned for follow-up angiography (mean follow-up time 393 ± 103 days) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) pullbacks from the MB were obtained in all patients and from the SB in six patients. A per-strut analysis showed an uncovered strut rate of 0.7 % and an incompletely-apposed strut rate of 0.8 %. Most incompletely-apposed struts were found at the bifurcation region, in the luminal half facing towards the SB. Mean NIH thickness in the proximal MB, distal MB and SB were 0.14 ± 0.11, 0.19 ± 0.11, and 0.34 ± 0.19 mm, respectively, with a variety of growth patterns observed in the SB. We found good vascular healing of the DES in the MB, while healing was less favourably in the SB part. Furthermore, we observed a variety of NIH growth patterns in this SB part and more studies are needed to investigate the relation between growth patterns and clinical outcomes.

Background— The Navvus pressure sensor–equipped microcatheter allows to measure functional stenosis severity over a work-horse guidewire and is used as a more feasible alternative to regular sensor-equipped wires. However, Navvus is larger in diameter than contemporary sensor-equipped guidewires and may, thereby, influence functional measurements. The present study evaluates the hemodynamic influence of the Navvus microcatheter. Methods and Results— In patients with intermediate coronary stenosis, coronary pressure and flow velocity were measured using a dual sensor–equipped guidewire before and after introduction of Navvus. Patients were randomized to microcatheter-first or guidewire-first measurement. The primary end point was the difference in hyperemic stenosis resistance index between measurements before and after introduction of Navvus. Measurements were completed in 28 patients (28 stenoses). Mean hyperemic stenosis resistance was 0.37±0.19 Hg/cm/s for wire-only assessment and 0.48±0.26 Hg/cm/s after Navvus introduction ( P P =0.001). Passing–Bablok analysis revealed absence of a constant difference but significant proportional difference between the methods. Mean fractional flow reserve was 0.86±0.06 for wire-only assessment and 0.82±0.07 after Navvus introduction ( P P =0.036). Passing–Bablok analysis revealed significant constant and proportional differences between methods. Similar results were documented for resting indices of stenosis severity. Conclusions— Introduction of the Navvus microcatheter leads to clinically relevant stenosis severity overestimation in intermediate stenosis.

Introduction: Theoretical advantages of fully bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) stem from transient vessel support without rigid caging. Therefore, it could reduce long-term adverse events associated with the presence of foreign materials.Areas covered: This article will provide an overview of: drug-eluting BRS for various applications in the treatment of vascular disease; The mechanisms of active agent release from such scaffolds; currently available drug-eluting BRS and their future applications are also discussed.Expert opinion: The current BRS have been developed in order to achieve optimal vascular patency while providing long-term safety. The clinical efficacy and safety of BRS in coronary treatment have been reported as equal to that of the current metallic drug eluting stents in simple lesions. The application of BRS can potentially be expanded to other vascular beds. The research in bioengineering for the appropriate materials should not only focus on biocompatibility but also should be tailored according to the sites of implantation, which may require different strength and supporting period. The ultimate goal in this field is to develop a biocompatible device that provides equivalent and complementary therapy to other devices, and is able to disappear when the mechanical support and drug delivery are no longer required.

Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) provide a new tool for percutaneous treatment of coronary stenosis. Initially, relatively simple coronary artery lesions were treated with this novel technology; nowadays, we have gained more experience with a wide variety of lesions, including bifurcation lesions. Data are limited in terms of the use of BRS in coronary bifurcation lesions, although it has been demonstrated that over time the bioresorbable struts are replaced by a tissue bridge resembling a "neo-carina". Furthermore, data are emerging about the endothelial shear stress (ESS) alterations and blood flow patterns after scaffold implantation. It is likely that ESS and blood flow determinations will guide correct future bifurcation techniques. In the future, BRS with thinner struts and more resistant to fracture are likely to improve bifurcation treatment with BRS.

AIMS To report procedural and midterm clinical outcomes after the use of the second-generation Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) in a real-world percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry. METHODS AND RESULTS All patients assigned to treatment with the Absorb BVS in the Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, between August 2012 and August 2013 were included in a prospective registry. A total of 135 patients were included in the study, including 53 (39%) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients (13% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]). In total 159 lesions were treated, including 102 (62%) with a type B2 or C classification. Pre- and post-procedural quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analyses showed an acute gain of 1.37±0.53 mm. An angiographic success rate was achieved in 152 (96%) of the lesions. Six-month follow-up was available in 97% of the patients. Six-month cumulative target vessel failure (composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction [MI] and target vessel revascularisation [TVR]) rate was 8.5%, including a 3.0% MI, 3.0% definite scaffold thrombosis, 6.3% target lesion revascularisation, and an 8.5% TVR rate. CONCLUSIONS The use of the Absorb BVS in a cohort reflecting daily clinical practice is feasible and associated with good procedural safety and angiographic success rate. In addition, six-month follow-up is associated with acceptable clinical outcomes.

Aims The Tryton bifurcation stent has been developed to improve clinical outcomes after treatment of bifurcation lesions. Limited data are available on the use of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in bifurcation lesions with side branches >2 mm. We present here the acute procedural results and midterm clinical follow-up of the first-in-man combined use of the Tryton stent and the Absorb scaffold for the treatment of complex bifurcation lesions. Methods and results Ten patients treated with the Tryton stent in combination with Absorb BVS were included in the current report. Offline two- and three-dimensional optical coherence tomography (OCT) analyses were performed to gain more insights into this novel approach. Procedural success was 91%, whereas angiographic success was achieved in 82%. Two TLRs occurred (TLR rate 20%), whereas no deaths, myocardial infarctions or stent thromboses were observed up to six months of follow-up. Conclusions We present a new treatment strategy in complex bifurcation lesions using the Tryton stent in combination with the Absorb BVS. This approach potentially offers an opportunity to treat complex bifurcation lesions with the Absorb BVS. Furthermore, three-dimensional OCT reconstructions give valuable insights into PCI of complex bifurcation lesions.

To improve clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions of coronary bifurcation lesions, the Tryton Side Branch Stent™ (Tryton Medical, Durham) was developed. Registry studies evaluating the Tryton stent has shown promisingclinical results and the stent is currently compared with the provisional single stent strategy in a randomized trial. However, clinical results beyond one year are lacking, and therefore, we investigated the one- and two-year outcomes after Tryton stent placement in a single-center registry study.All patients in our center in whom Tryton placement was attempted between October 2010 and December 2011 were included. Clinical outcomes were defined as cardiac death, any myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), and target vessel failure (TVF; composite of cardiac death, MI, and TVR). Event rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. We included 91 patients. Almost half (42%) of the patients included had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as indication for PCI (12% unstable angina, 14% NSTEMI, and 16% STEMI). Median follow-up duration was 713 days (IQR 617-840). TVF rates were 14.5% (one year) and 20.3% (two year). Two-year cardiac death, MI, TVR, TLR and ST rates were 4.4%, 10.2%, 12.7%, 9.2%, and 2.2%, respectively.In this single-center registry, use of the Tryton stent was associated with acceptable clinical outcomes at two-year follow-up.

Background The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (AbsorbBVS) is a completely resorbable device engineered to overcome the limitations of permanent metallic stents, providing temporary scaffolding and antiproliferative drug delivery for the treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease. Methods The objective of the AIDA trial is to evaluate the efficacy and performance in an contemporary all-comer population of the AbsorbBVS strategy vs the XIENCE family everolimus-eluting metallic coronary stent system in the treatment of coronary lesions. The AIDA trial is a prospective, randomized (1:1), active-control, single-blinded, all-comer, noninferiority trial. A total of 2,690 subjects will be enrolled with broad inclusion and limited exclusion criteria according to the "Instructions for Use" of the AbsorbBVS strategy. The study population includes both simple and complex lesions, in patients with stable and acute coronary syndrome. The follow-up continues for 5years. The primary end point of the trial is target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, at 2years. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT01858077. Conclusion The AIDA trial will provide the first randomized direct comparison between the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention practice.