Back to Search Start Over

One-year clinical performance of ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: Results from the RAI registry

Authors :
Francesco Pisano
Bernardo Cortese
Elisabetta Moscarella
Alessandro Colombo
Pedro Silva Orrego
Gabriele Tumminello
Maurizio Tespili
Paolo Calabrò
Rai registry investigators
Bruno Loi
Giampaolo Pasquetto
Attilio Varricchio
Alessandro Durante
Pietro Mazzarotto
Giuseppe Tarantini
Donatella Corrado
Alfonso Ielasi
Luciano Moretti
Giuseppe Steffenino
Moscarella, Elisabetta
Ielasi, Alfonso
Varricchio, Attilio
Cortese, Bernardo
Loi, Bruno
Tarantini, Giuseppe
Pisano, Francesco
Durante, Alessandro
Pasquetto, Giampaolo
Colombo, Alessandro
Tumminello, Gabriele
Moretti, Luciano
Calabrò, Paolo
Mazzarotto, Pietro
Tespili, Maurizio
Silva Orrego, Pedro
Corrado, Donatella
Steffenino, Giuseppe
Publication Year :
2019
Publisher :
John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2019.

Abstract

Objectives: To report 1-year clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) population. Background: BVS use has rapidly extended to high-risk patients as those presenting with ACS. To date limited data have been reported on BVS performance in ACS patients. Methods: RAI is a multicenter, prospective registry that included 1,505 patients treated with at least 1 successful BVS implantation. A subgroup analysis on ACS patients was performed and the 1-year outcomes of this cohort compared to the remaining stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) population are reported here. Coprimary endpoints were target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) at 1-year follow-up. Results: Fifty-nine percent of the patients presented with ACS, of whom 36.5% with ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. ACS patients were significantly younger, with a better cardiovascular risk profile, a lower rate of multivessel disease, chronic total occlusion or in-stent restenosis and a lower Syntax score. Predilation and postdilation were performed in 97.4% and in 96.5% of cases, respectively. No differences were noted in terms of TIMI 3 final flow, but acute gain was greater in ACS compared to SCAD group (P < 0.001). At one-year follow-up no differences were found in terms of TLR (3.3% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.98), and device-oriented composite end-point (4.3% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.4) between ACS and SCAD groups. The rate of definite/probable ScT was numerically higher in ACS vs. stable CAD patients (1.3% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.2). Conclusions: Our data suggest that the use of BVS in ACS patients is associated with a numerically higher rate of ScT compared to SCAD population numerically higher, but without statistical significance.

Details

Language :
English
Database :
OpenAIRE
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....04f117dc9b62750b636103acad6d98ae