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.

After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a chronic total occlusion (CTO), vessel diameter can increase over time due to restoration of flow and recuperation of endothelial and smooth muscle cell function, resulting in periprocedural stent sizing difficulties and the possibility

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 Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) related events were noticed between 1 and 3 years – the approximate time of active scaffold bioresorption. This resulted in the recommendation for 3 year DAPT after Absorb BRS implantation. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Absorb BRS in comparison with Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at 4 years follow-up in large unselected population. In addition, we aimed to assess the value of prolonged DAPT against scaffold thrombosis. Methods AIDA was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, multicenter, randomized, all-comers trial. Target vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization) and device thrombosis at 4-year follow-up are the primary focus of this analysis. During the trial recommendation for DAPT was changed to up to 3-years post Absorb BVS implantation. Whether this adaption influenced the results after Absorb BVS will be assessed. Results Between August 2013 and December 2015, 1,845 patients were enrolled, of whom 924 were randomized to treatment with Absorb BRS and 921 to Xience EES. The baseline characteristics in the two study arms were well balanced. Of all patients, 18% had diabetes mellitus, more than 50% presented with ACS and the median SYNTAX score was 11. In the Absorb BRS arm, 97% of lesions were predilated and in 74% post-dilatation was performed. Four-year clinical outcomes are currently being adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee. The results will be available at EuroPCR 2020. Conclusions Absorb BRS is associated with higher rates of scaffold thrombosis throughout 3-year of follow-up. The performance of Absorb BRS beyond 3-years, in comparison with the Xience EES, in a large unselected population will be presented. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01858077) Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Abbott

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

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.

Contains fulltext : 182904.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: To eliminate some of the potential late limitations of permanent metallic stents, the bioresorbable coronary stents or 'bioresorbable vascular scaffolds' (BVS) have been developed. METHODS: We reviewed all currently available clinical data on BVS implantation. RESULTS: Since the 2015 position statement on the appropriateness of BVS in percutaneous coronary interventions, several large randomised trials have been presented. These have demonstrated that achieving adequate 1 and 2 year outcomes with these first-generation BVS is not straightforward. These first adequately powered studies in non-complex lesions showed worse results if standard implantation techniques were used for these relatively thick scaffolds. Post-hoc analyses hypothesise that outcomes similar to current drug-eluting stents are still possible if aggressive lesion preparation, adequate sizing and high-pressure postdilatation are implemented rigorously. As long as this has not been confirmed in prospective studies the usage should be restricted to experienced centres with continuous outcome monitoring. For more complex lesions, results are even more disappointing and usage should be discouraged. When developed, newer generation scaffolds with thinner struts or faster resorption rates are expected to improve outcomes. In the meantime prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, beyond one year) is recommended in an individualised approach for patients treated with current generation BVS. CONCLUSION: The new 2017 recommendations downgrade and limit the use of the current BVS to experienced centres within dedicated registries using the updated implantation protocol and advise the prolonged usage of DAPT. In line with these recommendations the manufacturer does not supply devices to the hospitals without such registries in place.

Aims Extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) may affect outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this pre-specified subgroup analysis of the AIDA trial we evaluated the impact of SXscore on clinical outcomes Methods and results AIDA was a multicenter trial comparing Absorb with Xience. SX score was assessed using the baseline diagnostic angiograms. Each coronary lesion with diameter stenosis ≥50% in vessels ≥1.5 mm was scored. All lesion scores were combined to provide the overall SXscore. The angiographic SXscore calculations were performed by core laboratory analysts who were blinded for clinical events (Cardialysis B.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Clinical outcomes were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXcore ≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). The primary endpoint of this AIDA-trial substudy was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. The SXscore was prospectively calculated in 1661 of the 1845 patients (90%). The SXscore ranged from 1 to 57, with a mean±SD of 12.9±8.5 and a median of 11 (Q1-Q3 7–17). In this analysis the SXscore tertiles were defined as SXlow (SXcore ≤8) (n=589), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) (n=538), and SXhigh (>15) (n=534). Patients in the SXhigh group were older, had a more extensive medical history for previous revascularizations (both PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting), and were more likely to present with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction. At 2 follow-up the Kaplan-Meier estimates of TVF for the overall AIDA study population was 15.5% in the SXhigh tertile, 10.4% in the SXmid tertile and 4.7% in the SXlow tertile (hazard ratio (HR) 3.53 95% CI 2.28–5.45; P8 had significantly higher event rates as compared to patients with a SXscore ≤8. The rates of TVF in the Absorb BVS population are 15.5% (SXhigh), 11.4% (SXmid), and 3.7% (SXlow), with a significant difference between the SXlow versus SXmid (HR 3.27; 95% CI 1.61–6.68; p=0.001) and SXlow versus SXhigh (HR 4.57; 95% CI 2.29–9.10; p Target Vessel Failure in Absorb BVS Conclusions This study demonstrates that implantation of the Absorb in patients with a SXscore ≤8 is associated with numerically lower TVF rates as compared to the Xience drug-eluting stent. The rate of scaffold thrombosis in this SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, is more acceptable than in SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles. Higher SXscore (i.e. >8), both Sxmid and SXhigh, however, appears to be associated with markedly increased risk of device thrombosis, revascularization and myocardial infarction in patients treated with the Absorb. Acknowledgement/Funding The AIDA trial was financially supported by an unrestricted research grant from Abbott Vascular

AIMS Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention, might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment. ACS patients (STE-ACS patients in particular) are generally younger, and most often have lesions with softer plaques, a lower plaque burden and less extensive coronary artery disease. In this pre-specified subgroup analysis of the AIDA trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb BVS versus Xience EES treated patients presenting with or without ACS. Methods and results This analysis includes the 2-year outcomes of all 1845 patients randomized in the AIDA trial subdivided by clinical presentation, a pre-specified subgroup analysis. We compared patients presenting with ACS with those presenting without ACS (ACS versus no-ACS patients). Patients presenting with ACS were further sub-categorized according to the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation at presentation (STE-ACS versus NSTE-ACS patients). Baseline status by clinical presentation was known in all patients, and 842 (45.6%) patients presented with ACS, 456 (25.2%) with STE-ACS and 377 (20.4%) with NSTE-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). Conclusions In ACS patients within AIDA, we found no difference in rates of target vessel failure between the Absorb BVS and Xience EES groups. Rates of definite or definite/probable device thrombosis were higher in the Absorb BVS group throughout all clinical presentations. No significant interaction between ACS and no-ACS patients and the occurrence of TVF Acknowledgement/Funding The AIDA trial was financially supported by an unrestricted research grant from Abbott Vascular.

Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies. This sub-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after bioresorbable scaffold implantation. The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1,845 patients were

In a recent issue of the Journal , Navi et al. [(1)][1] demonstrated an increase in short-term risks for arterial thromboembolisms in patients with cancer. We would like to argue that this finding implies that arterial thromboembolisms can be the presenting symptom of an indolent cancer. Herewith

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. ACS patients (STE-ACS