AIMS: Meticulous lesion preparation prior to bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation has been strongly recommended. The aim of this study was to investigate if there was a benefit associated with scoring balloon use in lesion preparation in comparison to conventional balloons prior to implantation of a BVS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the lesions treated with BVS between May 2012 and July 2014, 155 lesions in the conventional balloon group and 29 lesions in the scoring balloon group were included. Procedures without predilatation and those which utilised cutting balloon or rotational atherectomy devices were excluded. Complex (B2/C lesion: 76.1% vs. 93.1%; p=0.028), restenotic (5.2% vs. 17.2%; p=0.036) and calcified (36.1% vs. 79.3%; p<0.001) lesions were more common in the scoring balloon group. Compared to the conventional balloon group, the scoring balloon group demonstrated better procedural IVUS outcomes with regard to both expansion index (defined as scaffold lumen area divided by final post-dilatation balloon cross-sectional area, 0.71 vs. 0.86; p<0.001) and eccentricity index (defined as minimal scaffold diameter divided by maximal scaffold diameter, 0.78 vs. 0.84; p<0.001). The occurrence of ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation at one year was similar (6.1% vs. 7.1%; p=0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Lesion preparation for complex lesions using a scoring balloon appeared to facilitate optimal sizing and radially concentric expansion of BVS.
AIMS: Meticulous lesion preparation prior to bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation has been strongly recommended. The aim of this study was to investigate if there was a benefit associated with scoring balloon use in lesion preparation in comparison to conventional balloons prior to implantation of a BVS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the lesions treated with BVS between May 2012 and July 2014, 155 lesions in the conventional balloon group and 29 lesions in the scoring balloon group were included. Procedures without predilatation and those which utilised cutting balloon or rotational atherectomy devices were excluded. Complex (B2/C lesion: 76.1% vs. 93.1%; p=0.028), restenotic (5.2% vs. 17.2%; p=0.036) and calcified (36.1% vs. 79.3%; p<0.001) lesions were more common in the scoring balloon group. Compared to the conventional balloon group, the scoring balloon group demonstrated better procedural IVUS outcomes with regard to both expansion index (defined as scaffold lumen area divided by final post-dilatation balloon cross-sectional area, 0.71 vs. 0.86; p<0.001) and eccentricity index (defined as minimal scaffold diameter divided by maximal scaffold diameter, 0.78 vs. 0.84; p<0.001). The occurrence of ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation at one year was similar (6.1% vs. 7.1%; p=0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Lesion preparation for complex lesions using a scoring balloon appeared to facilitate optimal sizing and radially concentric expansion of BVS.
Authors: Jung Min Ahn; Duk Woo Park; Sung Jin Hong; Young Keun Ahn; Joo Yong Hahn; Won Jang Kim; Soon Jun Hong; Chang Wook Nam; Do Yoon Kang; Seung Yul Lee; Woo Jung Chun; Jung Ho Heo; Deok Kyu Cho; Jin Won Kim; Sung Ho Her; Sang Wook Kim; Sang Yong Yoo; Myeong Ki Hong; Seung Jea Tahk; Kee Sik Kim; Moo Hyun Kim; Yangsoo Jang; Seung Jung Park Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 3.243