Literature DB >> 23118346

Clinical and intravascular imaging outcomes at 1 and 2 years after implantation of absorb everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in small vessels. Late lumen enlargement: does bioresorption matter with small vessel size? Insight from the ABSORB cohort B trial.

Roberto Diletti1, Vasim Farooq, Chrysafios Girasis, Christos Bourantas, Yoshinobu Onuma, Jung Ho Heo, Bill D Gogas, Robert-Jan van Geuns, Evelyn Regar, Bernard de Bruyne, Dariusz Dudek, Leif Thuesen, Bernard Chevalier, Dougal McClean, Stephan Windecker, Robert J Whitbourn, Pieter Smits, Jacques Koolen, Ian Meredith, Xiaolin Li, Karine Miquel-Hebert, Susan Veldhof, Hector M Garcia-Garcia, John A Ormiston, Patrick W Serruys.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The long-term results after second generation everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) placement in small vessels are unknown. Therefore, we investigated the impact of vessel size on long-term outcomes, after Absorb BVS implantation.
METHODS: In ABSORB Cohort B Trial, out of the total study population (101 patients), 45 patients were assigned to undergo 6-month and 2-year angiographic follow-up (Cohort B1) and 56 patients to have angiographic follow-up at 1-year (Cohort B2). The pre-reference vessel diameter (RVD) was <2.5 mm (small-vessel group) in 41 patients (41 lesions) and ≥2.5 mm (large-vessel group) in 60 patients (61 lesions). Outcomes were compared according to pre-RVD.
RESULTS: At 2-year angiographic follow-up no differences in late lumen loss (0.29±0.16 mm vs 0.25±0.22 mm, p=0.4391), and in-segment binary restenosis (5.3% vs 5.3% p=1.0000) were demonstrated between groups. In the small-vessel group, intravascular ultrasound analysis showed a significant increase in vessel area (12.25±3.47 mm(2) vs 13.09±3.38 mm(2) p=0.0015), scaffold area (5.76±0.96 mm(2) vs 6.41±1.30 mm(2) p=0.0008) and lumen area (5.71±0.98 mm(2) vs 6.20±1.27 mm(2) p=0.0155) between 6-months and 2-year follow-up. No differences in plaque composition were reported between groups at either time point. At 2-year clinical follow-up, no differences in ischaemia-driven major adverse cardiac events (7.3% vs 10.2%, p=0.7335), myocardial infarction (4.9% vs 1.7%, p=0.5662) or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (2.4% vs 8.5%, p=0.3962) were reported between small and large vessels. No deaths or scaffold thrombosis were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Similar clinical and angiographic outcomes at 2-year follow-up were reported in small and large vessel groups. A significant late lumen enlargement and positive vessel remodelling were observed in small vessels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23118346     DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302598

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  15 in total

1.  Bioresorbable scaffolds for the treatment of in-stent restenosis.

Authors:  Oliver Dörr; Christoph Liebetrau; Jens Wiebe; Franziska Hecker; Johannes Rixe; Helge Möllmann; Christian Hamm; Holger Nef
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2014-01-04       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  "Full bioresorbable jacket": a new era has begun.

Authors:  O Dörr; C Liebetrau; F Hecker; J Wiebe; H Möllmann; C Hamm; H Nef
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 1.443

3.  Reply: Bioresorbable Scaffolds in Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy-Searching for the Holy Grail Facing the challenge of the "Perilous Seat".

Authors:  Michele Pighi; Fabrizio Tomai; Flavio Ribichini
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  Treatment of a coronary bifurcation lesion with drug-coated balloons: lumen enlargement and plaque modification after 6 months.

Authors:  Bruno Scheller; Dieter Fischer; Yvonne P Clever; Franz X Kleber; Ulrich Speck; Michael Böhm; Bodo Cremers
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 5.  Current concepts on coronary revascularization using BRS in patients with diabetes and small vessels disease.

Authors:  Giulia Masiero; Marco Mojoli; Daisuke Ueshima; Giuseppe Tarantini
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  How to Select the Most Appropriate Patient and Lesion to be Treated with a Coronary Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold.

Authors:  Charis Costopoulos; Azeem Latib; Antonio Colombo
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2013-08

7.  Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a prospective multicentre study 'Prague 19'.

Authors:  Viktor Kočka; Martin Malý; Petr Toušek; Tomas Buděšínský; Libor Lisa; Petko Prodanov; Jiri Jarkovský; Petr Widimský
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2014-01-12       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 8.  Bioabsorbable stent quo vadis: a case for nano-theranostics.

Authors:  Buket Gundogan; Aaron Tan; Yasmin Farhatnia; Mohammad S Alavijeh; Zhanfeng Cui; Alexander M Seifalian
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 11.556

9.  Risk factors for coronary drug-eluting stent thrombosis: influence of procedural, patient, lesion, and stent related factors and dual antiplatelet therapy.

Authors:  Krishnankutty Sudhir; James B Hermiller; Joanne M Ferguson; Charles A Simonton
Journal:  ISRN Cardiol       Date:  2013-06-23

10.  Feasibility of second-generation bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in complex anatomical and clinical scenarios.

Authors:  Milosz Jaguszewski; Jelena-Rima Ghadri; Manuel Zipponi; Dana Roxana Bataiosu; Johanna Diekmann; Verena Geyer; Catharina Anna Neumann; Mia Aurelia Huber; Christian Hagl; Paul Erne; Thomas F Lüscher; Christian Templin
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2014-08-31       Impact factor: 5.460

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.